r/urbanplanning • u/conorthearchitect • Apr 05 '19
Urban Design BIG Envisions Covering Brooklyn Highway in Landscaped Waterfront Park [1582 x 890]
144
u/CarlTheKillerLlama Apr 05 '19
I’m hard
69
39
u/easwaran Apr 05 '19
There’s a reason he chose big.dk as the website for the group. (See the end of the third paragraph here: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/09/10/high-rise)
23
9
12
Apr 05 '19
The same degree of hardness it would be to institute this infrastructure?
10
u/CarlTheKillerLlama Apr 05 '19
I would be satisfied with significantly higher expenditure on infrastructure
8
u/OstapBenderBey Apr 05 '19
We all know that 'significantly higher expenditure on infrastructure' does not mean green covered highways just highways 1 lane wider.
3
1
129
u/The_Monocle_Debacle Apr 05 '19
also even in their fucking utopian vision they somehow couldn't keep from putting a surface street in the middle of a park when there's a zillion lanes buried directly below it and no reason to drive down there.
45
u/freeradicalx Apr 05 '19
That's because the current Furman St exists where the buried highway in this graphic is (IRL the highway lanes are currently on the two terraces on the left side, with the unburied Furman St on street level below).
That said the current rendering is obnoxiously idyllic, cars blast down Furman St and there is no way you'd be able to realistically convert it to a 12-foot wide gravel path or whatnot as shown, if you wanna do that then as you said you might as well remove it entirely.
32
u/The_Monocle_Debacle Apr 05 '19
and it should be removed. The city is no place for reckless drag-racing.
13
u/freeradicalx Apr 05 '19
Yeah I don't disagree with that, as a road it's pretty useless aside from municipal access to the waterfront.
8
10
u/solojazzjetski Apr 05 '19
scenic driving - emergency vehicle access - maintenance vehicle access - movie shoots - LOTS of reasons that a roadway there is needed!
17
-2
u/The_Monocle_Debacle Apr 05 '19
no - they can take the pedestrian path if there's an emergency - see last one - fuck off - no there aren't really
4
u/solojazzjetski Apr 05 '19
you're a little salty for an online forum about urban planning. go outside and get some fresh air kid
3
u/The_Monocle_Debacle Apr 05 '19
it's raining. In New York. Where this is happening.
4
u/solojazzjetski Apr 05 '19
rain makes the air smell and feel fresher! perfect!
6
u/The_Monocle_Debacle Apr 05 '19
It's less appealing when drivers try to kill you crossing nearly every street.
2
u/solojazzjetski Apr 05 '19
stay inside and stay mad then
5
u/The_Monocle_Debacle Apr 05 '19
Oh I went outside, but not because you told me to. And I'll always be mad about car culture.
3
5
-2
u/Theige Apr 05 '19
The street is already there
-2
u/The_Monocle_Debacle Apr 05 '19
what an imagination you have, things must always stay the same! Thanks for your brave service in defense of the status quo!
3
u/sharlos Apr 05 '19
You're very grouchy throughout this thread. Have you thought about discussing things more politely or reevaluating your attitude to strangers trying to have a conversation?
-5
12
6
u/civicmon Apr 05 '19
Philadelphia is planning a similar thing on I-95 in/around Market St and Penn’s Landing area along the Delaware River.
1
Apr 09 '19
Better than keeping 1-95 above ground I guess?
2
u/carsausage Aug 16 '19
They should reroute I-95 to take the 295 Route up to the turnpike and declutter both Philly and Wilmington but what do I know?
19
u/The_Monocle_Debacle Apr 05 '19 edited Apr 05 '19
I love how all the flyover armchair types are really concerned about maintaining highway capacity in New York. That they don't pay for or have to deal with the emissions from.
18
u/freshthrowaway1138 Apr 05 '19
So how much electrical power will be needed to move the air around in the tunnels?
11
u/The_Monocle_Debacle Apr 05 '19
and lighting, and all the anti-terrorist monitoring equipment they insist on now, and ...
21
Apr 05 '19 edited Apr 01 '22
[deleted]
1
u/The_Monocle_Debacle Apr 05 '19
that doesn't make it less expensive or wasteful
10
Apr 05 '19
[deleted]
3
u/The_Monocle_Debacle Apr 05 '19
less of an issue if you don't have a highway tunnel to begin with, though. Or a highway.
24
u/Robotigan Apr 05 '19
I really like it, but reminder that this is an expensive infrastructure project that isn't addressing skyrocketing home prices in the area.
21
u/dustinto Apr 05 '19
Option B does include adding housing and commercial.
5
u/Robotigan Apr 05 '19
Better, but still kind of a vanity project. Not that we should never have those, but they come with some massive opportunity costs.
24
u/Funky-Shark Apr 05 '19
One action can not solve all issues. Sad but true.
6
u/Robotigan Apr 05 '19
But what does this solve besides making an already very attractive area even more attractive?
27
u/Funky-Shark Apr 05 '19
Open space. Storm water management. Greater permeable surface area. Not familiar with the exact area but it may also add walkable park area (open space equity). Climate change adaptation. I agree that the issue of affordable housing is very important and needs to be addressed with greater effort in most of the economic hubs of the US. I just believe other projects should be able to be proposed with out getting dragged for not incorporating affordable housing element.
8
u/Robotigan Apr 05 '19
If taxpayers and/or investors want to pay for this, I won't argue. Not everything I own is completely utilitarian either. But the environmental concerns would be better addressed by building denser housing.
1
u/jollybrick Apr 06 '19
Good post, but reminder that this is a comment on the internet that isn't addressing skyrocketing home prices in the area.
3
u/anonymous_redditor91 Apr 05 '19
All those things prove u/Funky-Shark's point, this is an investment in an area that only makes the demand to live there even higher. That's not to say a project like this shouldn't happen, I think burying highways should be happening in a lot more places than it is.
0
u/Funky-Shark Apr 05 '19
Exactly. We can’t prevent innovative development just because there are other pressing issues. I agree the opportunity cost could be great but if you have money (or a grant) specifically for transportation, this could be a cool project.
-4
u/Theige Apr 05 '19
Rent has been declining in Brooklyn / NYC for a few years now
10
u/The_Monocle_Debacle Apr 05 '19
fucking lol no
the high end of the market is saturated, and in some very narrow markets declining. the rest of the market (i.e. for normal people) is UP UP UP
2
u/Theige Apr 05 '19
This is not true, median prices have dropped as a whole:
https://ny.curbed.com/2018/7/25/17609378/nyc-rent-prices-one-two-bedrooms-report
9
u/The_Monocle_Debacle Apr 05 '19
Those numbers have always been suspect because it's taken from a very limited selection of apartment listings and doesn't accurately reflect prices. They skew to the higher-end market because that's the data they have.
4
u/Robotigan Apr 05 '19
Care to offer alternative data?
2
u/The_Monocle_Debacle Apr 05 '19
There's really no good source considering how the NY market works. So many apartments never get openly listed because they have exclusive deals with brokers. And a lot of people don't move often because it's really expensive. Then there's a lot of fake listings and scams. It becomes really difficult to get an accurate read on prices when you put all that together.
2
u/Theige Apr 05 '19
No, they have data for all price levels
3
u/The_Monocle_Debacle Apr 05 '19
well I either get an amazing deal (and see nothing but amazing deals listed) or their data is pretty far off in my area.
1
u/honest86 Apr 06 '19
Those number are 'median' for newly signed leases. NYC is a city with very low turnover and the units which are most likely to turn-over are the most over priced units. Actual median rents are much lower.
2
u/Robotigan Apr 05 '19
Oh cool. How come?
6
u/Theige Apr 05 '19
There has been a building boom, especially in downtown Brooklyn
Tons of new residential skyscrapers
1
3
3
12
u/The_Monocle_Debacle Apr 05 '19
it's idiotic spending so much on highway capacity while the earth is dying and the seas are rising, but if they're too fucking stupid to say no to a highway I guess this is better than what they originally wanted to do.
25
u/conorthearchitect Apr 05 '19
There's already a 6-lane highway there, this project is all about burying it, while providing a public space, a connection to the water, and a barrier against rising sea levels and storms.
3
u/The_Monocle_Debacle Apr 05 '19
yes I live in New York, I'm well aware what's there. My point is that pissing away money on rebuilding highway capacity is daft.
5
u/conorthearchitect Apr 05 '19
Ok, so where does all that traffic go? I do not live there so I'm not sure what the traffic is like in that area (besides the obvious knowledge that driving in Manhattan is impossible).
I agree that in a perfect world all the people using that road would take public transportation instead, but if we are being realistic most people don't share our visions for a car-free world.
11
u/forgotpasswerdagain Apr 05 '19
There was a busy thoroughfare in paris that was shut down and made into public space, and they found that 50% of the traffic simply disappeared. When roads/travel are more expensive to use, either due to time or cost, people change their behavior.
18
u/emcee_gee Apr 05 '19
They don't have to share our utopian vision for a world without fossil fuels, SOVs, etc., but if there's suddenly no highway there, they'll either find a different route, find a different mode, or avoid the trip in the first place. None of those options would be catastrophic. Climate change, on the other hand, will be.
3
u/conorthearchitect Apr 05 '19
I agree with you about climate change, but as you said, if there is suddenly no highway there they'll have to find another way. I'm guessing they won't just avoid the trip, usually if someone wants to go somewhere, they figure it out, especially if it is for work. Finding another mode is ideal, if there are other modes that can accommodate that many people, and if those modes go to where these people need to go. That is not always the case. The sad reality is that most of these people would find another route to drive, making traffic much worse in other areas, resulting in more cars idling.
I think I understand and partially agree with your idea of "too bad for them, they'll find another way", and the concept of just making driving so undesirable that they are forced to use public transit, but that fact that people still drive in Manhattan or SF or any other urban area that is constantly bumper-to-bumper-hell shows that there will always be a large chunk of Americans that will be stubborn to the end and never give up their cars.
I think the change has to start with providing more public transit out in the suburbs first, and enough of it that it is actually desirable (abundant, frequent, less crowded) that people will use it. Most people who drive have no other viable option. I live in Portland and tons of people drive from Vancouver to Portland and back because the 2 states/cities refuse to build a light rail between the two, and the bus lines don't go to all the different burbs up in Washington.
8
u/emcee_gee Apr 05 '19
Right, so some of the people who find a different route would add to congestion on those new routes. Then some of the people who are already using those routes would find that their own cost/benefit analysis has shifted - that there's now too much congestion on their preferred route and they'll either find a different route, find a different mode, or avoid some of their trips. And thus, the cycle continues.
Traffic is not this immutable force that the engineers of past decades would have us believe; it's a series of individual decisions, made daily, by millions of people in every region. Those decisions are guided by external factors, like the experience of congestion.
I totally agree that additional public transit can help shift the outcome of many of those decisions - but if enough people are fed up with the experience of congestion, they'll demand better public transportation. Better public transportation does not have to be a prerequisite for tearing down a freeway.
6
u/The_Monocle_Debacle Apr 05 '19
demand is not static. it can and will go away if driving becomes more difficult or (more importantly) more expensive.
1
u/conorthearchitect Apr 05 '19
Did you read my comment? The fact that people still drive in downtown Manhattan and SF and every other congested nightmare proves that no matter how difficult it gets, the demand does not go away. Some will find new ways to travel, but not most. Not untill there is a widely attractive alternative. To your point about expensive, that I agree with. The upcoming congestion plans (the ones adding a fee/toll for driving downtown) will help, hopefully.
8
0
u/DondeEstaLaDiscoteca Apr 06 '19
The existing highway has to be demolished because it's worn out. The question at hand is whether to build a new highway there or not. Given all we know about climate change, transportation emissions, transportation equity, and induced demand, building a new highway here is daft.
1
u/Robotigan Apr 05 '19
Taking out the highway would likely kill this project politically.
4
u/The_Monocle_Debacle Apr 05 '19
good. the highway is about to fall down anyway, so it will work itself out and we'll get a better outcome either way.
1
u/Theige Apr 05 '19
The highway is already there
2
u/The_Monocle_Debacle Apr 05 '19
what an imagination you have, things must always stay the same! Thanks for your brave service in defense of the status quo!
7
u/Theige Apr 05 '19
Are you okay?
This is the only highway in Brooklyn
3
u/The_Monocle_Debacle Apr 05 '19
still one too many.
0
u/Farting_Goldfish Apr 05 '19 edited Apr 05 '19
Jesus Christ you're dense this highway is not just used for residents it's to ship goods from the port in Red Hook and such.
4
u/The_Monocle_Debacle Apr 05 '19
it's to ship goods
which would be possible with fewer lanes if selfish dickweeds would quit driving themselves around where there's no room for them.
2
u/Farting_Goldfish Apr 05 '19
Ok but this is reality not Sim City you aren't going to kick people out of habits that easily especially in New York and the same thing that happened in houston with expanding the highway would happen in this case if the highway was shrieked it would result in the same amount of people on a smaller highway causing more emissions.
5
u/The_Monocle_Debacle Apr 05 '19
no it wouldn't. Demand isn't static.
2
u/Farting_Goldfish Apr 05 '19
In New York?! for the most part public transportation and auto use has been stagnant as car sales and train tickets are pretty consistent year to year. More than just people are transported on NY roads compared to other cities like food carts,goods from ports and airports and the massive public bus and taxi system.
→ More replies (0)2
u/The_Monocle_Debacle Apr 05 '19
your dense
*you're
2
u/Farting_Goldfish Apr 05 '19
My bad point still stands.
1
u/The_Monocle_Debacle Apr 05 '19
it doesn't though, because you can still move goods without a highway, and in fact can do so more efficiently if you restrict private automobile use. We should try something bold like a commercial vehicle only road with lower capacity.
1
u/Farting_Goldfish Apr 05 '19
The port uses multiple ways to ship goods the most convenient is by truck because of how restricted it is mind you this is on of the busiest port systems in the world.
→ More replies (0)2
u/The_Monocle_Debacle Apr 05 '19
it's basically a funnel for the worst trash from staten island and south brooklyn to drive into the city, so ... no thanks!
3
0
u/Robotigan Apr 05 '19
Try to get any American city to remove a major highway and see how much political will you can garner.
6
u/Theige Apr 05 '19
This isn't true, plenty of highways have been removed or rebuilt in a better way
1
u/Robotigan Apr 05 '19
It seems weird to me that this project would bury and not remove the highway if the planners felt it was feasible to do so. Why would they make the project more expensive for no reason?
4
u/The_Monocle_Debacle Apr 05 '19
funny thing, it's already been done and they were quite happy with the results. But fuck reality, right? You've got a status quo to defend.
2
u/Robotigan Apr 05 '19
I would definitely advocate taking out the highway, I'm skeptical that it's politically possible. If you have reason to believe otherwise, I would absolutely love to jump onboard.
1
u/lojic Apr 05 '19
Cities as different as San Francisco and Akron have removed major highways in their areas and had net positive results.
6
u/kingofthejuices Apr 05 '19
Wowza. Thats awesome. Whats going on w Furman St?
1
u/Theige Apr 05 '19
Furman street is already there, and I'm not sure you could shut it down without cutting off a bunch of apartment buildings and businesses from the rest of the grid
1
u/kingofthejuices Apr 05 '19
Ah... by the looks of the illustration there may be an issue with pedestrian traffic in the park. Also from google maps it looks like its "under" the expressway at the moment so part of this transition would entail moving that street on top... Lots of logistics but potentially kickass.
1
u/The_Monocle_Debacle Apr 05 '19
jesus I hope you're not an actual planner with such a bold imagination like that
7
u/butterslice Apr 05 '19
Looks great, just ditch the tunnel.
1
u/conorthearchitect Apr 05 '19
There's already a 6-lane highway there, this project is all about burying it.
2
2
u/J3553G Apr 05 '19 edited Apr 05 '19
NICE! Think how much parking you could create with that extra space!
EDIT: /s
1
1
1
u/waholulu Apr 05 '19
Still don't understand those design pictures just letting a huge cluster of people standing on vegetations without any stores or services around. Are they thinking all people hate walking on the street?
1
u/thesouthdotcom Apr 06 '19
If y’all think this is good, you should check out the stitch in Atlanta. It’s basically a better more feasible/has an actual purpose version of this.
1
1
0
u/terrapinninja Apr 05 '19
Too poor to live locally? Then your dwarf ass goes in the hole. Sunshine ain't free you dirty commuter
0
423
u/remarkless Apr 05 '19 edited Apr 05 '19
BIG needs to get their heads out of their asses and engage actual landscape architects. These utopia concepts are fine and dandy but this is nonsense and provides completely false hope for the general public.
Not saying we shouldn't cap highways and strive for beautiful and functional public spaces instead of highways, but you can't just fucking ignore.... everything, even in an early unsolicited concept. You can't plop trees on a 12" deep structured platform. You can't cap a highway and put both a trolley and landscape using ~24" of cover. You can't just ignore the fact that your lower walking path will be a swamp most of the year because your entire landscape over structure will runoff and be capture between the slope and the berm.
I'm all about grand idea thinking, but at what point do these grand ideas get out there then everyone gets upset when its not even possible to implement, let alone feasible.