Food For Thought: A Brief History Of American Waterfronts,Via David Byrne’s Bicycle Diaries
Over the weekend, diving into Bicycle Diaries, the new book by David Byrne — which is an utter joy to read, by the way — we stumbled across this passage in Byrne’s chapter on American cities, and boy, did it ever sound familiar:
[...]There is often a highway built along the waterfront in many towns. Before these highways were built, the waterfronts, already dead zones, were seen as the most logical places from which to usurp land for conversion into a concrete artery. Inevitably, little by little, the citizens of these towns become walled off from their own waterfronts, and the waterfronts became dead zones of yet a different kind — concrete dead zones of clean, swooping flyovers and access ramps that soon were filled with whizzing cars. Under these were abandoned shopping carts, homeless people, and piles of toxic waste. Often you couldn’t even access the water as a pedestrian unless you climbed a few fences.
Most of the time it turns out the cars are merely using these highways not to have easier access to businesses and residences in the nearby city, as might have been originally proposed, but to bypass that city entirely.[...]
What, exactly, can be gleaned from this? Well, the way we see it, a few things: One, is that Philadelphia’s waterfront problem is really a national one, a victim, like so many other things, of our old way of life (which still persists but simply cannot much longer). Another lesson here gets to the heart of why, for instance, Sugarhouse has been allowed to come into being, employing the old saw echoed by so many locals who are either pro-casino or just don’t care either way: That they’re so tired of “nothing” being on the waterfront that even a shitty slots parlor would be a step up. There’s something kind of resigned and battered about this point of view, but it is what it is. Maybe someday, we’ll all see that sometimes, “nothing” is a hell of a lot better than “something.”
October 13th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Go west, young man. As in the Schuylkill. That waterfront is bangin’.
October 13th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
David Byrne is an urban planner at heart. More Songs About Buildings and Food, (Nothing But) Flowers, and Cities! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51IZG6Ryeis#movie_player
October 13th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
I wouldn’t really say the problem here is national, per se. Yes, it is an issue, but I think it his viewpoint (and our acceptance of that viewpoint) is exaggerated by the fact that the major point of reference for the reader(s) (Philly) and the writer (Baltimore) are faced with this scenario. I don’t necessarily see it being that much of an issue in say DC, or LA, Houston, Boston, Chicago, etc. (NY, maybe a little, but still, not so much.)
October 13th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
According to PennDOT’s numbers, Delaware Ave north of Market Street carries two thirds of what Spring Garden west of Broad handles (22,000 vs 33,000), yet Del Ave has two more lanes. We could easily convert the outter lanes into a full-on bike paths.
October 13th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Boston? C’mon, they had to have that whole big dig to reconnect the harbor to the city.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
AquaBoogie, I direct you to a compendium of case studies introduced by John Norquist, head of the Congress for New Urbanism, on tearing down highways in cities (the site isn’t the prettiest, but helpfully information-packed):
http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/index.html
Most of these address highways directly connected to waterways. It’s a national issue alright. And there are some seriously compelling examples (San Francisco) of entire neighborhoods being pulled out of disinvestment by reconnecting them to their waterfronts.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Again, didn’t say it wasn’t an issue, but I guess when I hear “national” problem, I assume it affects more than 3-4 cities ……
It’s a matter of the definition of the word. Not the issue.
But then again, without reading the website (no time at the moment), what are the proposals to handle some of the logistical issues removing these highways would produce? Philly, ok, it’s a piece of 95, but the West Side Highway in Manhattan …. how would it handle the volume of NYC cars getting around Manhattan vs. merely through Manhattan as Byrne suggests?
October 16th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Well, AquaBoogie, it would discourage more people from using their cars, for one. Second, distributing the remainder through the grid isn’t as traumatic as you think. Think water through a colander rather than a funnel. This has worked successfully in Milwaukee, among other places.
I also have to correct you on your other point: it is absolutely a problem nationally! You say it isn’t in DC, but near the Watergate you can’t get to the river from town because of the Rock Creek Expressway, and parts of SE and SW are even worse. Across the river, Arlington is separated from the Potomac in more places than it is not, thanks to the parkway there. Planners and civic boosters in DC would love nothing more than to tear those out.
It is an issue from coast-to-coast…Seattle has the Alaska Way Viaduct…St Louis has I-70….Cincinnati has Fort Washington Way…Hartford has I-91…plus SanFran, as was already mentioned. There are groups in each of those cities trying hard to correct mistakes made years ago, just like some are here.
Places like LA or Houston or Phoenix have either paved their rivers in to concrete culverts (LA) or don’t have riverfronts downtown at all. Would you rather not have that problem?
So, a concern nationally: YES.