Remember the Embarcadero Fwy? Well, check this out...

[dd74]

This video from this website, Streetfilms | San Francisco: Removal of the Embarcadero Freeway, shows what creative urban planning can do in lieu of hideous freeways. L.A. did the same thing, but with an unused line of railroad tracks that ran from Beverly Hills to Sepulveda Blvd. The result made Santa Monica Boulevard absolutely gorgeous. I wish what's shown in this video could do this with the 405 and 101 Freeway.

[tabs]

Shyte man ....lets fking do it....we can just raise the Sale Tax in LA County by another 3% to accomplish this wonder of the world...OR Better yet pass anothe BOND ISSUE....I think maybe the Chinese would be all for it...Ohh wait scratch the Chinks they ain't buyin anymore of our debt. Well DD I guess if ya want it you just going to have to convince your Hollywood buddies to chip in a few Billion....Ohhhwhat do ya mean they ain't takin your calls ever since they found out that you actually want them to pay for it and not the people of the city and state...but what a shame it would have bin so beautiful...a virtual wonder of the world.

[dd74]

What's the matter, fat boy? The Buffet at the Golden Nugget give you indigestion?

You've been stuck in Sin City so long, you haven't seen the advancements your old haunts have made since you've left. Yeah, they even have a light rail line going to La Puente now (didn't you used to hang out there, Blood, with your lowered 911 on bicycle wheels?)

Anyway, put down the stogie and Vaseline & give it a thought; no one goes anywhere on Southland freeways these days, so WTF, how about some real-world metropolitan innovation. There was an idea, once, of opening the LA River channel to freeway traffic, or were you not around for that spectacle of ingenuity?

[tabs]

I'll have you know I am not fat anymore I tip the scales at merely 310....but hen Mother always said I was big boned....and pleasantly plump as she slopped another helping of mashed potatoes on my plate.

I was being sarcastic with you...because I do think that you know CA has a budget crisis with just being able to pay its bills let alone another expensive project.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

One word - privatization.

The notion of removing private vehicles from a city core is not new - it has been around for at least 70 years. Many architects and urban planners have envisioned pedestrian malls/thoroughfares with vehicle parking around the perimeter for commuter use.

I disagree that "more upscale shopping and dining" is the cure for all urban planning problems though. Most city planners can't think past this notion. It's a no-brainer because those are the kinds of businesses that can be bent over constantly with taxes, yet create an aesthetic appeal that keeps the suckers... er... customers coming back again and again. Therefore it's an easy sell to city councils and neighborhood council groups - what's not to like (other than the traffic)? It's a cash cow. Combine those with a bunch of high-priced luxury condos and apartments and you've got a recipe for (seemingly) unending revenue - or such is the theory.

The downsides are these sorts of developments create a homogeneity to urban settings which we see in the rise of American Generica - everything looks like everything else. It's played out and overdone. It crushes individuality and neighborhood/community character. It's just another variation on the Wal-Mart-ization of society. It also tends towards gentrification and runaway speculation as everyone tries to get on the gravy train (we've already seen this). Developments are skewed towards the high-end (i.e. "highest profit margin and highest tax revenue"). Poorer people are marginalized and forced out. These sorts of development projects (also seen in combination with overpriced condo developments for "mixed use") are extremely sensitive to changes in economic climate. As soon as things hiccup, they bomb and the associated tax revenues plummet. We're seeing this too - one of the reasons CA's communities are in such dire straits is because they're far too over-exposed to revenue dependence on projects of this type.

I'm not saying these are bad ideas - but they're bad ideas when copied all over the landscape to the ridiculous level of density we have today. Because of the associated risk, I believe they're also bad ideas for cities/governments to get involved with to any great extent. This is best left to private developers who are more in tune with risk management. Local governments must resist the temptation to go "all in" or to sell out their master plans for the "easy buck" during boom times (like so many did recently). I do agree that reducing traffic, street dedications and other space in the urban core just to accommodate parking is desirable though. Things are starting to get far too congested and pedestrian/vehicular use incompatibility becomes worse with increases in density.

One more reason to live in the sticks I guess. "The solution to pollution is dilution". In other words, move the pollutant (people) out of the cities. But barring that, I'm all for better urban planning initiatives.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by tabs

I'll have you know I am not fat anymore I tip the scales at merely 310....but hen Mother always said I was big boned....and pleasantly plump as she slopped another helping of mashed potatoes on my plate.

I was being sarcastic with you...because I do think that you know CA has a budget crisis with just being able to pay its bills let alone another expensive project.

I know you were, as I was with you. In the end, you're correct, and it's all just wishful thinking on my part. In fact, the 405 Fwy has been widened; several lots of homes were torn down to make room for the Cal Trans expansion...

[KevinP73]

Originally Posted by tabs

I'll have you know I am not fat anymore I tip the scales at merely 310....but hen Mother always said I was big boned....

You misunderstood her, she said you were the result of her getting a big bone.

[arcsine]

One would hope that with Seattle having the blight of an elevated highway running along its' waterfront, that an idea like this may make some of the folks there think about committing billions to replacement or going underground.

You hope.

[Burnin' oil]

Originally Posted by dd74

what's the matter, fat boy? The buffet at the golden nugget give you indigestion?

You've been stuck in sin city so long, you haven't seen the advancements your old haunts have made since you've left. Yeah, they even have a light rail line going to la puente now (didn't you used to hang out there, blood, with your lowered 911 on bicycle wheels?)

anyway, put down the stogie and vaseline & give it a thought; no one goes anywhere on southland freeways these days, so wtf, how about some real-world metropolitan innovation. There was an idea, once, of opening the la river channel to freeway traffic, or were you not around for that spectacle of ingenuity?

nice!

[ckissick]

Based on SF's experience, it seems Seattle could easily lose their viaduct and greatly improve their waterfront. Everyone here used to think that losing the Embarcadero Freeway would cause gridlock. It didn't. It was an immense improvement. Our waterfront went from a hideous, noisy, stinky, dismal eyesore to a world-class urban scenic corridor.

Seattle should follow suit and not wait for a big earthquake.

[Gogar]

DD,

I saw a really great documentary the other day (can't remember the name of it),

that detailed how the LA freeway system evolved from the heavy rail commuter train lines of the '40s and '50s. Basically, the LAMTA, which existed until 1964 when it became the SCRTD, ran a huge, highly profitable, highly efficient network of metro train lines (including the one you describe from BH to Sepulveda.) Under intense pressure and some backroom deals from oil and tire companies almost the entire SoCAL rapid transit system was converted in just a few years from rail to BUSSES. All those brand new busses immediately clogged the existing freeways, and started the city on its path to freeway madness where it is now, apparently.

I thought it was really neat, I'll try to find it. But the pics of LA from that era look a lot like the "embarcadero" video, strangely enough. Oh yeah, with 10 million less people too, I guess.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by Gogar

DD,

I saw a really great documentary the other day (can't remember the name of it),

that detailed how the LA freeway system evolved from the heavy rail commuter train lines of the '40s and '50s. Basically, the LAMTA, which existed until 1964 when it became the SCRTD, ran a huge, highly profitable, highly efficient network of metro train lines (including the one you describe from BH to Sepulveda.) Under intense pressure and some backroom deals from oil and tire companies almost the entire SoCAL rapid transit system was converted in just a few years from rail to BUSSES. All those brand new busses immediately clogged the existing freeways, and started the city on its path to freeway madness where it is now, apparently.

I thought it was really neat, I'll try to find it. But the pics of LA from that era look a lot like the "embarcadero" video, strangely enough. Oh yeah, with 10 million less people too, I guess.

All of what you saw is true. L.A. has a very bad history when it comes to big business and urban development, the freeways notwithstanding. There in fact were supposed to be even more freeways in L.A. Ex: the Laurel Canyon Freeway, the Malibu Freeway, and some whacked-out express way that ran over the water from Santa Monica to Ventura, IIRC.

The only thing that really stopped additional freeway building beyond what we have now, was a lack of funds. But if that weren't the case, there'd be at least ten more freeway systems snaking around Los Angeles County.

Somewhere I have a map that shows all the existing and planned freeways, circa late 1950s. It is strange knowing what could have been.