Still, do you see how many trees there are? That place must've still looked nice and was certainly transformable into a really nice place without unreasonable effort.
Nah not really, such low population density requires cars to be used.
If you think tearing that down would be simple, then yes. But I think that even in Atlanta that would be difficult.
The reason why those highways are there is that more people wanted to live in that kind of neighborhood.
such low population density requires cars to be used
As someone living in a much less dense area, I wholeheartedly disagree. Even just a single tram stop with >=bi-hourly frequency near the center could make that entire area car-free if the people weren't car-brained. That area looks like it'd be bikable in <10min side-to-side, so most people could probably even walk to such a tram stop.
(That tram would actually need to go somewhere but that's part of a larger system's problem, not of this hypothetical neighbourhood.)
First of all, I am sure that is part of something much larger and it is a real neighborhood, not something hypothetical.
Second, I don't see people giving up their car brains just because you put a tram. I myself would still be using a car if it wasn't made completely superfluous and fatiguing where I live and work.
I am sure that is part of something much larger and it is a real neighborhood, not something hypothetical.
I'd agree but I don't see how that makes a difference. My point was that the visible part could be served by even just one tram station. If there are more such parts, you'd obviously need tram stops for those aswell. (More tram stops would realistically be necessary anyways.)
I don’t see people giving up their car brains just because you put a tram.
Me neither. Point was that it'd be possible for those people to reasonably get where they need to go without any cars involved with as little infrastructure as a single tram stop.
The reason why those highways are there is that more people wanted to live in that kind of neighborhood.
No, those highways are there because white men got together and intentionally chose to put the highway there with complete disregard (or quite possibly, with malice) for the people who lived there.
No, the 1950s version (actually more like 1900s; those houses were already decades old at the time they were photographed) was good. It was a traditional street grid with small blocks, and there were streetcars going all over the place. Sure it was mostly single-family (probably with more than a few duplexes sprinkled in), but it had great bones for densifying later when demand justified it.
I live only a few miles from the area pictured, in a neighborhood with the same development pattern. Even though it's been damaged by the removal of the old streetcars and having zoning superimposed upon it after the fact (which causes problems by mandating things like too-large setbacks and minimum parking requirements, as well as outlawing corner stores within residential areas), it's still mostly fine.
That's what I was thinking. Neither solve the problem. The 1950s one just resulted in bigger traffic jams. What solves the problem is robust public transportation.
And in Cities Skyline you can just pause time, delete and fix a bunch of shit, and continue. Instant and nobody complains that you just bulldozed their house.
I think highways would look nicer if real city planners had the ability to redesign everything vs add on pieces over time.
When you bulldoze houses in skylines and unpause you'll notice your population goes down. Because they were inside the houses. That you bulldozed. Have a good day!
Nope, they're temporarily not counted as residents because they're enjoying an all expenses stay in the swankiest spot in town as they await their new construction!
And Cities Skylines massively fudges things by treating cars Jetsons-style (take up negligible space when sims get to their destination). If the game accurately modeled parking, it would be way worse (and no longer fun to play, which is why the developers didn't do it).
Cities Skylines 2 fixes this a little, there're actual parking lots built into businesses and extra parking lots you can build. The scale is still a little funky, but it's more in line with the general scale of the game now.
How do roads even end up like this? The cloverleaf is as extreme as I'm willing to drive through. If anything like this came up in Google maps for my drive I would just nope on home.
Engineer answer: being a stack interchange, it's actually easier to navigate than a cloverleaf because there's only one exit in each direction instead of separate "A" and "B" exits with an entrance ramp and weaving in between. The complexity in this case simply comes from the fact that it's superimposed on top of what used to be a street grid, so they added a bunch of exits to local streets.
Big-picture answer: the desire to put freeways there in the first place is the product of mental illness.
Yeah they only seem complicated from the air, on the ground you just read the signs and it's always clear, or if you're using your phone - just go in the lane it tells you
Those are the state government offices next to the Capitol building. It's not actually a swastika, but if it can be mistaken for one it's not a great look. 😬
“What do you mean, why's it got to be built?” he said. “It's a bypass. You've got to build bypasses.” Bypasses are devices that allow some people to dash from point A to point B very fast while other people dash from point B to point A very fast.
There are still some chucklefucks who want to build I-485 (tunneling under the rich white neighborhoods north of I-20 and bulldozing straight through the poorer and blacker ones south of it, of course).
As another said, that's not spaghetti junction (Tom Moreland interchange), but frankly people get pretty fast and loose with how much of the surrounding area they'll call 'Atlanta' anyway. The actual city of Atlanta proper is much smaller than most people would think by just looking at a satellite photo, and the distinction between the many cities usually doesn't matter much unless you live there.
People from Atlanta really love to gatekeep the city, though. You live ITP? You live in Atlanta. OTP? You live in some redneck shithole whose name isn't worth remembering.
It's a distinction that matters. The fact that the City of Atlanta only makes up 1/10 of Metro Atlanta (by population) and that the rest of the metro is Balkanized into dozens of different jurisdictions is a substantial cause of a lot of the fragmented city planning and other related problems we have around here.
I'm not American so I might not fully understand the repercussions of this. (houses being demolished and stuff)
But I honestly prefer the current version.
It seems to have more green spaces. The highways could be shit, but if it meant better public transportation them I'm all for it (buses for instance). Maybe kill a few lanes and get a train going there or something...
I don't know, the old layout seems very claustrophobic to me. The newer one seems to have more potential.
Edit: Upon reviewing the picture again, I think the previous version had a lot of parks that seemed "claustrophobic" but it's just because it's a B&W picture... So maybe I'd change my mind and go with the older one.
they demolished a medium density neighborhood for highways so suburbs can commute in and out of inner city. when you destroy neighborhoods and create "green space", people don't just stop existing. they either get pushed to the suburbs if they can afford it, or (most likely) the ghettos.
and how does highway create public transit?
highway is a mechanism to separate the undesired that cannot afford cars. kill a few lanes and build trains would mean "those people" can reach "our neighborhoods".
Back when they built highways, they used them to segregate neighborhoods. Also, the US has dog shit public transit. Buses are terrible and trains are barely existent. The entire country is built around automobiles.
Also, the US has dog shit public transit. Buses are terrible and trains are barely existent. The entire country is built around automobiles.
Nope! The very area we're looking at here used to have an extensive streetcar network:
The notion that the US was built around automobiles is a goddamn scurrilous lie. It was built for walking and transit just like everywhere else, and then it was demolished for automobiles!
I haven't checked the video yet (but I 100% will) but that's absolutely how I feel too.
I'm from Europe and the big cities are usually easily navigated without a car. Smaller cities maybe not so much BUT, you can still kindof easily walk to ride a bike somewhere.
I'm always surprised when watching American movies that there's not sidewalk if you leave the city centers.
That's is absolutely incomprehensible to me lol I can walk from my city to the next 3 or 4 neighboring cities all by walking and using the sidewalk.
The scale is the issue. You won't find many places in Europe where the next town over is over 100 miles (200 km) away. Get even 150 miles from the coasts in the US and you can easily find places where that is the case.
I don't think that's the case. My country is also big, cities are apart by hundreds of km. But our cities still are dense, there are (almost) no suburbs, and roads are not giants. In my city (2nd largest in the country) the largest roads have 6 lanes. There is only 1 street with 8 lanes. A lot of important busy streets have 4 lanes. Most streets have only 2 lanes.
There are still sidewalks (many streets even have more sidewalk than road), there aren't huge parking lots everywhere, public transportation is everywhere.
But I honestly prefer the current version. It seems to have more green spaces.
Those "green spaces" are worthless freeway medians that do nothing but attract homeless camps. Here's a street view of some of it -- complete with panhandlers and tents in the background -- so you can see what I'm talking about.
Edit: LOL, nothing like downvoting a local for telling you the truth.
I don't mind your guy's opinion at all, that was what I wanted to know when I left a comment. I even started by saying that I'm not even a local precisely because I wanted the locals opinions.
You all went out of your way to downvote me though, I'm not even quite sure why.
Apologies; my edit was directed at someone else, then.
Still, I think your comment earned its downvotes because suggesting the vast wasteland of parking lots and freeway medians has "potential" while calling the walkable, human-scale devlopment it replaced "claustrophobic" is... frankly, just objectively incorrect. I'm not sure you realize just how zoomed-out the view is, but for the record, those two prominent horizontal parallel roads (Memorial Dr and Fulton St) are about 1/4 mile (0.4km) apart. That means if you're trying to, say, walk from your house at the southeast corner of the image to the State Capitol just off the top of it, the majority of your journey is along a 5-lane stroad overpass above a busy freeway. It's among the least-pleasant pedestrian experiences one could imagine, short of not having a sidewalk at all.
Yeah I see what you mean. I had to go on street view to get it. I hadn't even realised that it was an overpass lol. Thought it was just a road but even so, it would be a boring walk.
With the old layout you'd have a more pleasant one through the neighbourhood and such.
Also about my initial comment, even though the parks looked claustrophobic to me, I said it was likely the black and white colors messing it up for me, and yeah we're zoomed out a lot.
Also, parks are almost never claustrophobic anyways, I just meant how it looked from above I guess.
...comes across as disgusted, as if we can't have the homeless out here visible. I'm all for helping them and have volunteered and donated accordingly, though I could do more.
A green, shaded spot to camp is a lot better than many homeless have it I'm afraid. Better than a freeway underpass if I had to choose personally.
Of course I don't want to see homeless people there, because I don't want there to be homeless people there. And you shouldn't either! WTF is wrong with you, that you want people to be homeless?!
You're the one advocating for them to be relegated to fucking freeway medians, not me!
I wanted the city to not close the Peachtree & Pine homeless shelter so that we wouldn't have this problem in the first place!
You should be fucking ashamed of yourself for dishonestly trying to shoot the messenger for the grievous sin of merely pointing out the goddamn problem!
Let me guess what kind of people predominantly lived in the neighborhoods that were bulldozed.
Blue=Black, Red=White.
So you have a before version?
No, that's from 2000 I think.
Atlanta is still apparently the USA's second most segregated city, so I can't imagine it was a multicultural wonderland in the 1950s.
The article those pictures appear to be from says it was mostly black neighbourhoods demolished.
https://daringivens.medium.com/atlantas-interstates-destruction-of-city-fabric-in-the-1950s-mobility-woes-today-4882b4ec6830
Sadly, I don't think there's enough uncertainty to consider it a guess.
Sure the designers of this monstrosity thought, "There are only black people living there, so it's a win-win" -.-
You can thank Robert Moses for that.
The expressway must expand in order to acommodate the increasing needs of the expressway
Am I the only one who finds the 1950s version also not nice from an urban planning perspective? I mean, it is a car-centered design anyway.
Still, do you see how many trees there are? That place must've still looked nice and was certainly transformable into a really nice place without unreasonable effort.
Now, it's basically a wasteland.
Yea just get rid of the poor people right?
Nah not really, such low population density requires cars to be used. If you think tearing that down would be simple, then yes. But I think that even in Atlanta that would be difficult. The reason why those highways are there is that more people wanted to live in that kind of neighborhood.
As someone living in a much less dense area, I wholeheartedly disagree. Even just a single tram stop with >=bi-hourly frequency near the center could make that entire area car-free if the people weren't car-brained. That area looks like it'd be bikable in <10min side-to-side, so most people could probably even walk to such a tram stop.
(That tram would actually need to go somewhere but that's part of a larger system's problem, not of this hypothetical neighbourhood.)
There are a lot of assumptions there.
First of all, I am sure that is part of something much larger and it is a real neighborhood, not something hypothetical.
Second, I don't see people giving up their car brains just because you put a tram. I myself would still be using a car if it wasn't made completely superfluous and fatiguing where I live and work.
The former streetcars aren't an "assumption;" they're historical fact. Here's the damn map!
That was not the assumption. Also, that map is either 20something years too early or too late to be proof of much of what was going on in the 1950s.
Absolutely.
I'd agree but I don't see how that makes a difference. My point was that the visible part could be served by even just one tram station. If there are more such parts, you'd obviously need tram stops for those aswell. (More tram stops would realistically be necessary anyways.)
Me neither. Point was that it'd be possible for those people to reasonably get where they need to go without any cars involved with as little infrastructure as a single tram stop.
No, those highways are there because white men got together and intentionally chose to put the highway there with complete disregard (or quite possibly, with malice) for the people who lived there.
No, the 1950s version (actually more like 1900s; those houses were already decades old at the time they were photographed) was good. It was a traditional street grid with small blocks, and there were streetcars going all over the place. Sure it was mostly single-family (probably with more than a few duplexes sprinkled in), but it had great bones for densifying later when demand justified it.
I live only a few miles from the area pictured, in a neighborhood with the same development pattern. Even though it's been damaged by the removal of the old streetcars and having zoning superimposed upon it after the fact (which causes problems by mandating things like too-large setbacks and minimum parking requirements, as well as outlawing corner stores within residential areas), it's still mostly fine.
That's what I was thinking. Neither solve the problem. The 1950s one just resulted in bigger traffic jams. What solves the problem is robust public transportation.
JUST ONE MORE LAME,I SWEAR TO GOD, JUST ONE MORE LANE AND WE'RE DONE. ONE MOAR LANE. MOAAAAR
A little lane of asphalt please,
More pollution if I freeze,
Running over children these,
A fresh bouquet of cancers.
(Parody of Glass of Water)
Looks like what happens with headphone cables in the pocket.
Nice little neighborhood you got there. Would be a shame if someone needed a new highway, wouldn’t it?
Weird how it always goes through the minority neighborhood
I've been playing cities skyline and I'll be honest, when my city gets like that I just restart.
And in Cities Skyline you can just pause time, delete and fix a bunch of shit, and continue. Instant and nobody complains that you just bulldozed their house.
I think highways would look nicer if real city planners had the ability to redesign everything vs add on pieces over time.
I like to think that people who get relocated in my skylines games get compensated appropriately and receive decent support in their relocation.
Because video games are supposed to be a form of escapism and it doesn't get more escapism than that :/
When you bulldoze houses in skylines and unpause you'll notice your population goes down. Because they were inside the houses. That you bulldozed. Have a good day!
Nope, they're temporarily not counted as residents because they're enjoying an all expenses stay in the swankiest spot in town as they await their new construction!
Nice try!
And Cities Skylines massively fudges things by treating cars Jetsons-style (take up negligible space when sims get to their destination). If the game accurately modeled parking, it would be way worse (and no longer fun to play, which is why the developers didn't do it).
Cities Skylines 2 fixes this a little, there're actual parking lots built into businesses and extra parking lots you can build. The scale is still a little funky, but it's more in line with the general scale of the game now.
Now play Workers and Resources?
Cities should be built around people, not motor vehicles.
@arc you mean, would we have to really use public transport ? 😟 🤔 @sexy_peach
Yes, or cycle / walk.
How do roads even end up like this? The cloverleaf is as extreme as I'm willing to drive through. If anything like this came up in Google maps for my drive I would just nope on home.
Engineer answer: being a stack interchange, it's actually easier to navigate than a cloverleaf because there's only one exit in each direction instead of separate "A" and "B" exits with an entrance ramp and weaving in between. The complexity in this case simply comes from the fact that it's superimposed on top of what used to be a street grid, so they added a bunch of exits to local streets.
Big-picture answer: the desire to put freeways there in the first place is the product of mental illness.
Just follow the arrows
Yeah they only seem complicated from the air, on the ground you just read the signs and it's always clear, or if you're using your phone - just go in the lane it tells you
It’s a good thing removing all those homes definitely didn’t cause or contribute to any way more serious problems in society. Right?
/s
Is that a swastika block?
Any block is a swastika block if you ignore the right set of roads.
But that's not the block's fault ;)
Above the highways a bit to the right. Partially visible.
Those are the state government offices next to the Capitol building. It's not actually a swastika, but if it can be mistaken for one it's not a great look. 😬
You can take this picture in just about any city in the US too. NYT did a pretty good piece about it, gifted so y'all can read it: Can Removing Highways Fix America’s Cities? https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/05/27/climate/us-cities-highway-removal.html?unlocked_article_code=1.60w.uuX5.Oo4CsHZXGv8Q&smid=nytcore-android-share
Cool illustration, thanks!
“What do you mean, why's it got to be built?” he said. “It's a bypass. You've got to build bypasses.” Bypasses are devices that allow some people to dash from point A to point B very fast while other people dash from point B to point A very fast.
It's a quote from hitchhikers guide to the galaxy
FYI, unless I'm mistaken, that is spaghetti junction and it's not actually in Atlanta, but just northeast of it in Doraville
Edit: I was severely mistaken...
Sadly, that’s the intersection of I-75/85 and I-20, right in the middle of downtown ATL. Here’s a more recent picture showing some more context.
Also, here’s an article talking about the history of I-20 being built through Atlanta: https://smartgrowthamerica.org/program/divided-by-design/atlanta-ga/
There are still some chucklefucks who want to build I-485 (tunneling under the rich white neighborhoods north of I-20 and bulldozing straight through the poorer and blacker ones south of it, of course).
As another said, that's not spaghetti junction (Tom Moreland interchange), but frankly people get pretty fast and loose with how much of the surrounding area they'll call 'Atlanta' anyway. The actual city of Atlanta proper is much smaller than most people would think by just looking at a satellite photo, and the distinction between the many cities usually doesn't matter much unless you live there.
when people say Atlanta to people that don't live in the surrounding area they really mean the greater metro Atlanta area.
People from Atlanta really love to gatekeep the city, though. You live ITP? You live in Atlanta. OTP? You live in some redneck shithole whose name isn't worth remembering.
It's a distinction that matters. The fact that the City of Atlanta only makes up 1/10 of Metro Atlanta (by population) and that the rest of the metro is Balkanized into dozens of different jurisdictions is a substantial cause of a lot of the fragmented city planning and other related problems we have around here.
Zoom out slightly.
It's greener now, right?
Freeway medians don't count as green space.
https://www.insider.com/city-names-you-didnt-know-you-were-pronouncing-wrong-2019-10#schenectady-new-york-7
I guess it's good to know I don't pronounce most of those incorrectly.
I'm not American so I might not fully understand the repercussions of this. (houses being demolished and stuff)
But I honestly prefer the current version. It seems to have more green spaces. The highways could be shit, but if it meant better public transportation them I'm all for it (buses for instance). Maybe kill a few lanes and get a train going there or something...
I don't know, the old layout seems very claustrophobic to me. The newer one seems to have more potential.
Edit: Upon reviewing the picture again, I think the previous version had a lot of parks that seemed "claustrophobic" but it's just because it's a B&W picture... So maybe I'd change my mind and go with the older one.
they demolished a medium density neighborhood for highways so suburbs can commute in and out of inner city. when you destroy neighborhoods and create "green space", people don't just stop existing. they either get pushed to the suburbs if they can afford it, or (most likely) the ghettos.
and how does highway create public transit?
highway is a mechanism to separate the undesired that cannot afford cars. kill a few lanes and build trains would mean "those people" can reach "our neighborhoods".
Back when they built highways, they used them to segregate neighborhoods. Also, the US has dog shit public transit. Buses are terrible and trains are barely existent. The entire country is built around automobiles.
Yeah, I sometimes complain about my country's public transportation but you guys have it worse...
You have public transport only because you did complain
I live in Florida, too. It's the worst here.
Nope! The very area we're looking at here used to have an extensive streetcar network:
The notion that the US was built around automobiles is a goddamn scurrilous lie. It was built for walking and transit just like everywhere else, and then it was demolished for automobiles!
I really like donoteat's video for why this is a problem
https://piped.araozu.dev/watch?v=rseaKBPkRPU
It's not about the 'feeling' claustrophobic or not having green areas, it's about the US's obsession with cars and it's consequences in the people
I haven't checked the video yet (but I 100% will) but that's absolutely how I feel too. I'm from Europe and the big cities are usually easily navigated without a car. Smaller cities maybe not so much BUT, you can still kindof easily walk to ride a bike somewhere.
I'm always surprised when watching American movies that there's not sidewalk if you leave the city centers. That's is absolutely incomprehensible to me lol I can walk from my city to the next 3 or 4 neighboring cities all by walking and using the sidewalk.
The scale is the issue. You won't find many places in Europe where the next town over is over 100 miles (200 km) away. Get even 150 miles from the coasts in the US and you can easily find places where that is the case.
Indeed, but even within the city, I've seen places where the sidewalk just disappears.
Distances are absolutely massive in the US though, yeah...
I don't think that's the case. My country is also big, cities are apart by hundreds of km. But our cities still are dense, there are (almost) no suburbs, and roads are not giants. In my city (2nd largest in the country) the largest roads have 6 lanes. There is only 1 street with 8 lanes. A lot of important busy streets have 4 lanes. Most streets have only 2 lanes.
There are still sidewalks (many streets even have more sidewalk than road), there aren't huge parking lots everywhere, public transportation is everywhere.
Those "green spaces" are worthless freeway medians that do nothing but attract homeless camps. Here's a street view of some of it -- complete with panhandlers and tents in the background -- so you can see what I'm talking about.
Edit: LOL, nothing like downvoting a local for telling you the truth.
? I hadn't even read your comment until now.
I don't mind your guy's opinion at all, that was what I wanted to know when I left a comment. I even started by saying that I'm not even a local precisely because I wanted the locals opinions.
You all went out of your way to downvote me though, I'm not even quite sure why.
Also yeah, those underpasses look nasty af.
Apologies; my edit was directed at someone else, then.
Still, I think your comment earned its downvotes because suggesting the vast wasteland of parking lots and freeway medians has "potential" while calling the walkable, human-scale devlopment it replaced "claustrophobic" is... frankly, just objectively incorrect. I'm not sure you realize just how zoomed-out the view is, but for the record, those two prominent horizontal parallel roads (Memorial Dr and Fulton St) are about 1/4 mile (0.4km) apart. That means if you're trying to, say, walk from your house at the southeast corner of the image to the State Capitol just off the top of it, the majority of your journey is along a 5-lane stroad overpass above a busy freeway. It's among the least-pleasant pedestrian experiences one could imagine, short of not having a sidewalk at all.
Yeah I see what you mean. I had to go on street view to get it. I hadn't even realised that it was an overpass lol. Thought it was just a road but even so, it would be a boring walk.
With the old layout you'd have a more pleasant one through the neighbourhood and such.
Also about my initial comment, even though the parks looked claustrophobic to me, I said it was likely the black and white colors messing it up for me, and yeah we're zoomed out a lot. Also, parks are almost never claustrophobic anyways, I just meant how it looked from above I guess.
The homeless don't think those "green spaces" are worthless. Without them, where do you think they go? Just disappear??
You're not actually suggesting we should accept people living on freeway medians instead of building proper housing for them, are you?
No, quite the opposite. Your choice of words...
...comes across as disgusted, as if we can't have the homeless out here visible. I'm all for helping them and have volunteered and donated accordingly, though I could do more.
A green, shaded spot to camp is a lot better than many homeless have it I'm afraid. Better than a freeway underpass if I had to choose personally.
Of course I don't want to see homeless people there, because I don't want there to be homeless people there. And you shouldn't either! WTF is wrong with you, that you want people to be homeless?!
You're the one advocating for them to be relegated to fucking freeway medians, not me!
I wanted the city to not close the Peachtree & Pine homeless shelter so that we wouldn't have this problem in the first place!
You should be fucking ashamed of yourself for dishonestly trying to shoot the messenger for the grievous sin of merely pointing out the goddamn problem!
I'm not American so I will say that this is still terrible.
If you want to live in green space, move to soviet-era district: