Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are only looking at this from your point of view. Other than those directly in the path of a highway, there was no effect on population. You, yourself just said they moved to other parts of the city. How many businesses moved from the city, verses new companies, or expansion of existing companies? Remember, as manufacturing grew up in this country, companies needed to single floor model for manufacturing, as opposed to the previous multi story buildings. It was entirely a different reason for cities losing their luster. In the end, highways improved things more than hurt.
No, I'm not thinking of this from my point of view, but from a socio-historical context.
That is incorrect to say that there was no impact on population, as again, you have to consider that Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse stopped annexation decades before the Interstate highway system. So, as highways take up land in the cities by essentially bisecting or even destroying some neighborhoods, those people have to move somewhere and that is likely within the city. In turn, as I mentioned, long term residents of those neighborhoods that they move into, would many times move to the suburbs, which were growing in large part due to the highway system. That is where the redlining aspect comes into play as well.
Some of the small business in those neighborhoods that were impact moved, but many didn't come back due to the neighborhood dynamics changing.
Again, many manufacturing companies just moved out of the city as well. In fact, the factory my mother worked at in Syracuse was initially in the Franklin Square area of the city, but ended up in East Syracuse for decades before it shut down. So, there are examples of even manufacturing moving out of the city to the suburbs.
Sure there were other reasons/factors cities lost their luster for a time, but I think you may be underestimating the highway factor for parts of cities as well. Keep in mind that there are more people that want a walkable lifestyle and given the Downtown/urban housing trend in many cities across the country, many cities are removing elevated highways for more housing, greenspace and mixed use development.
^ You seem to always have to insert the annexation idea. So are we to gather that cities really didn't grow, except in acquiring more land, and the people that went along? To be honest, that sort of thing still does happen, although a little differently.
Metro areas. A county may be added to a host city's metro area based on how the counties depend on each other. A good example is how Yates county is now part of the Rochester (sorry) metro. So there's that.
I guess where we disagree, you see the expressways as a way to escape the city, and get to your safe suburbs. I see them as a benefit both ways, but mostly to get into the city.
^ You seem to always have to insert the annexation idea. So are we to gather that cities really didn't grow, except in acquiring more land, and the people that went along? To be honest, that sort of thing still does happen, although a little differently.
Metro areas. A county may be added to a host city's metro area based on how the counties depend on each other. A good example is how Yates county is now part of the Rochester (sorry) metro. So there's that.
I guess where we disagree, you see the expressways as a way to escape the city, and get to your safe suburbs. I see them as a benefit both ways, but mostly to get into the city.
I bring up annexation, because not all cities are the same and it can be used to inflate city population.
Metropolitan area designation are based off of the US census commuting interchange, which has to be at least 25%. It is at a minimum of 15% to under 25% for Combined statistical areas(CSAs).
You are essentially making my point, but wording it in a different way. What I'm saying that the highways are the suburbs gain, while the city lost in terms of population and even development(i.e.-land). Another way to look at this is the fact that the highway system made it easier for those in the suburbs to get into the city and across the area, but while taking up some prime land within the city. In turn, it impacts cities like Buffalo, etc. that have a smaller land area to work with. With that said, with current trends in terms of city development, it plays a part in regards to highway removal or restructuring.
Status:
"Smartened up and walked away!"
(set 20 days ago)
11,767 posts, read 5,781,921 times
Reputation: 14186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thundarr457
Regardless, if the state wants to spend 1 billion dollars to improve the space, then even a 70% good project is better than nothing. Look at what happened with the Piece Bridge, instead of a signature gateway there is an almost 100 year old antique getting upgraded as much as possible. This chance won't happen again. Buffalo has the first local governor in modern history and she is doing as much as she can for the area.
You are kidding right? Hochul? Hochul became Albany as soon as she stepped foot in the city. Time to let the people vote on these projects and quit having it shoved down their throats like they did with the roundabouts in Tonawanda,
I bring up annexation, because not all cities are the same and it can be used to inflate city population.
Metropolitan area designation are based off of the US census commuting interchange, which has to be at least 25%. It is at a minimum of 15% to under 25% for Combined statistical areas(CSAs).
You are essentially making my point, but wording it in a different way. What I'm saying that the highways are the suburbs gain, while the city lost in terms of population and even development(i.e.-land). Another way to look at this is the fact that the highway system made it easier for those in the suburbs to get into the city and across the area, but while taking up some prime land within the city. In turn, it impacts cities like Buffalo, etc. that have a smaller land area to work with. With that said, with current trends in terms of city development, it plays a part in regards to highway removal or restructuring.
You really can't blame the highways for the cities loss of population. It had to be something else that caused people to flee the cities. History shows that during the time the highways were built, the war was ending, and people wanted to settle down and raise a family, than thus the growth of the suburbs. They didn't flee the city. They were just looking for a home after the war. Don't blame the suburbs for offering a better opportunity than the city as for as quality of life.
As far as Buffalo, didn't 300,000 more people previously live in the same footprint?
You have to wonder, without highways, if all the cultural attractions would be built in the city, of course with county taxpayers money.
You really can't blame the highways for the cities loss of population. It had to be something else that caused people to flee the cities. History shows that during the time the highways were built, the war was ending, and people wanted to settle down and raise a family, than thus the growth of the suburbs. They didn't flee the city. They were just looking for a home after the war. Don't blame the suburbs for offering a better opportunity than the city as for as quality of life.
As far as Buffalo, didn't 300,000 more people previously live in the same footprint?
You have to wonder, without highways, if all the cultural attractions would be built in the city, of course with county taxpayers money.
You are taking what I'm saying out of context. Again, my point is that the highways helped the suburbs in terms of development, by making it easy to get into the city/across the area in a more efficient manner. However, those same highways did cut through and even destroyed neighborhoods. No matter how much manipulation of the narrative one would like to make, the fact is that highways did cut through many city neighborhoods across the country and had an impact on cities. Especially when you take redlining into account, as those displaced people have to go somewhere and they weren't even allowed in many cases to live in the suburbs.
If anything, the city population allowed for the cultural attractions to be built, as many predate suburban development. Especially if you consider that there are no suburbs without the center city and all cities have a degree of a built environment that predates the car. Meaning, walkability and public transportation. So, it seems like cities are trying to go more and more back to that time, while not making people completely ditch their cars/vehicles.
You are taking what I'm saying out of context. Again, my point is that the highways helped the suburbs in terms of development, by making it easy to get into the city/across the area in a more efficient manner. However, those same highways did cut through and even destroyed neighborhoods. No matter how much manipulation of the narrative one would like to make, the fact is that highways did cut through many city neighborhoods across the country and had an impact on cities. Especially when you take redlining into account, as those displaced people have to go somewhere and they weren't even allowed in many cases to live in the suburbs.
If anything, the city population allowed for the cultural attractions to be built, as many predate suburban development. Especially if you consider that there are no suburbs without the center city and all cities have a degree of a built environment that predates the car. Meaning, walkability and public transportation. So, it seems like cities are trying to go more and more back to that time, while not making people completely ditch their cars/vehicles.
You can make all of the "arguments" you want, but the fact is, the city wanted money to do this project, and blaming others , and a sense of appeasement to "right a wrong" is a good way to get it funded. Plain and simple.
You can make all of the "arguments" you want, but the fact is, the city wanted money to do this project, and blaming others , and a sense of appeasement to "right a wrong" is a good way to get it funded. Plain and simple.
Or there are trends that come back in vogue in terms of the type of development people want.
We also have to be honest about history and its impact when looking at the topic. No one else has mentioned the word blame, by the way.
I think it is a matter of a recalibration of a view, after seeing what has happened. Especially when you consider that there is a real trend of highway removal or restructuring in many cities across the country and even other parts of the world in recent years.
Also, here is an opinion piece from the Buffalo News about the project from a couple of weeks ago...
"Knowing that Restoring Our Community Coalition has changed its long-standing position from advocating for removal of the NYS Route 33 (Kensington Expressway) and parkway restoration to supporting the proposed tunnel, I was surprised to witness a very different consensus at a recent hearing.
Of the more than 30 citizens who took the microphone, many of the speakers were Humboldt and East Side residents and people of color. Some spoke in pragmatic terms, expressing the belief (and dismay) that this project will move forward with or without community support, and thus turned to concerns on its construction and outcome. But what was heard most resoundingly was a total rejection of NYSDOT’s plan, in favor of true restorative justice in the form of highway removal and the restoration of Humboldt Parkway.
This position is in direct alignment with what is happening in cities across the U.S. and world. Further, it is the direction that both public and professional discourse have moved in civil society and the fields of urban planning and design, landscape architecture and architecture. It closely parallels conversations I’ve had with students and among community groups and leaders. In this context, there is a decided misalignment between the priorities of the state and those of the community. This is not a billion-dollar investment in the East Side. It is a billion-dollar investment in highway infrastructure, in order to maintain vehicular capacity at the continued expense of the East Side.
I believe, as those who spoke at the hearing do, that the East Side deserves better – to have back what was stolen from it in the first place: Humboldt Parkway, the most spectacular Olmsted parkway in the city, and a cultural landscape of global significance. Further, the East Side deserves economic viability in its commercial corridors, which were robbed of traffic, consumers and livelihood with the highway’s construction. Thus, removing the highway – from downtown to (at least) the 198 – is the only fair and just solution in righting the historic wrong that was – and remains – the 33.
Instead, the state is telling these communities they can never have their parkway back – that it’s this: a tunnel and scrappy park (with inadequate soil depth for large trees) that dead ends into, and fans pollutants from, the trench as we know it, or nothing. But why does the East Side of Buffalo deserve less than Syracuse, Rochester, Niagara Falls and “region central” in Buffalo? In all these places, New York State is proceeding with highway removal (including the at-grade-street replacement of the 198 and disconnection from the 190 and 33).
When it comes to the 33, the state has decided that minor convenience for white, middle– and upper-class, suburban residents matters more than the human health, welfare, economic value, viability, culture, quality of life and overall humanity of Black and brown Buffalo and the entire East Side.
The bottom line: we cannot accept the proposed tunnel as the only option for the East Side and for Buffalo. The removal of the 33 and the full restoration of Humboldt Parkway must be on the table for consideration, and we must fight for it.
Gregory Delaney is a Clinical Associate Professor, School of Architecture and Planning, the University at Buffalo.and a member of the Design Committee, Scajaquada Corridor Coalition."
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 10-23-2023 at 12:20 PM..
Status:
"Smartened up and walked away!"
(set 20 days ago)
11,767 posts, read 5,781,921 times
Reputation: 14186
I agree with chk on this one - let the residents decide what they want. I remember visiting MIT with my son while looking at colleges - at the time The Big Dig was going on - on going project that ran over time and budget and during one of it's initial days - a ceiling panel fell on a car and killed a woman. Things look great until they aren't.
Or there are trends that come back in vogue in terms of the type of development people want.
We also have to be honest about history and its impact when looking at the topic. No one else has mentioned the word blame, by the way.
I think it is a matter of a recalibration of a view, after seeing what has happened. Especially when you consider that there is a real trend of highway removal or restructuring in many cities across the country and even other parts of the world in recent years.
Also, here is an opinion piece from the Buffalo News about the project from a couple of weeks ago...
"Knowing that Restoring Our Community Coalition has changed its long-standing position from advocating for removal of the NYS Route 33 (Kensington Expressway) and parkway restoration to supporting the proposed tunnel, I was surprised to witness a very different consensus at a recent hearing.
Of the more than 30 citizens who took the microphone, many of the speakers were Humboldt and East Side residents and people of color. Some spoke in pragmatic terms, expressing the belief (and dismay) that this project will move forward with or without community support, and thus turned to concerns on its construction and outcome. But what was heard most resoundingly was a total rejection of NYSDOT’s plan, in favor of true restorative justice in the form of highway removal and the restoration of Humboldt Parkway.
This position is in direct alignment with what is happening in cities across the U.S. and world. Further, it is the direction that both public and professional discourse have moved in civil society and the fields of urban planning and design, landscape architecture and architecture. It closely parallels conversations I’ve had with students and among community groups and leaders. In this context, there is a decided misalignment between the priorities of the state and those of the community. This is not a billion-dollar investment in the East Side. It is a billion-dollar investment in highway infrastructure, in order to maintain vehicular capacity at the continued expense of the East Side.
I believe, as those who spoke at the hearing do, that the East Side deserves better – to have back what was stolen from it in the first place: Humboldt Parkway, the most spectacular Olmsted parkway in the city, and a cultural landscape of global significance. Further, the East Side deserves economic viability in its commercial corridors, which were robbed of traffic, consumers and livelihood with the highway’s construction. Thus, removing the highway – from downtown to (at least) the 198 – is the only fair and just solution in righting the historic wrong that was – and remains – the 33.
Instead, the state is telling these communities they can never have their parkway back – that it’s this: a tunnel and scrappy park (with inadequate soil depth for large trees) that dead ends into, and fans pollutants from, the trench as we know it, or nothing. But why does the East Side of Buffalo deserve less than Syracuse, Rochester, Niagara Falls and “region central” in Buffalo? In all these places, New York State is proceeding with highway removal (including the at-grade-street replacement of the 198 and disconnection from the 190 and 33).
When it comes to the 33, the state has decided that minor convenience for white, middle– and upper-class, suburban residents matters more than the human health, welfare, economic value, viability, culture, quality of life and overall humanity of Black and brown Buffalo and the entire East Side.
The bottom line: we cannot accept the proposed tunnel as the only option for the East Side and for Buffalo. The removal of the 33 and the full restoration of Humboldt Parkway must be on the table for consideration, and we must fight for it.
Gregory Delaney is a Clinical Associate Professor, School of Architecture and Planning, the University at Buffalo.and a member of the Design Committee, Scajaquada Corridor Coalition."
Just like I said at the beginning, this is why nothing gets done. The 33 will never be removed and if all this static keeps up then the whole thing will be scrapped. Better to have a "scrappy park and tunnel" than nothing. The governor is making this happen out of loyalty to the area, if the people don't want it then leave it the way it is. If you get rid of the 33 and dump the traffic on the "restored Humboldt Parkway" you will have just as much pollution and noise. Just look at the Piece Bridge, lots of static and an almost 100 year old antique instead of a gateway. I am sure lots of communities would love the 1 billion to restore their areas.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
