Capping the IDL

[dsjeffries]

From USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-05-05-urban-parks_N.htm

Urban parks take over downtown freeways
By Haya El Nasser, USA TODAY





Cities are removing the concrete barriers that freeways form through their downtowns — not by tearing them down but by shrouding them in greenery and turning them into parks and pedestrian-friendly developments.

This gray-to-green metamorphosis is underway or under consideration in major cities seeking ways to revive sections of their downtowns from Los Angeles and Dallas to St. Louis and Cincinnati.

Transportation departments are not opposed as long as the plans don't reduce highway capacity. In most cases, traffic is rerouted.

"It's the coming together of people wanting green space and realizing that highways are a negative to the city," says Peter Harnik, director of the Trust for Public Land's Center for City Park Excellence. "Covering them with green space gives you a wonderful place to live and work."

Groups that are not always on the same page — environmentalists and developers — are embracing the "capping" or "decking" efforts for different reasons. Environmentalists encourage more trees and grass to offset carbon emissions and promote walkable neighborhoods to reduce reliance on cars. Developers are eager for space to build on in prime downtown locations. Citizens want parks and amenities they can reach on foot.

"Highways are extremely destructive to the fabric of urban life," says Harnik, author of Urban Green: Innovative Parks for Resurgent Cities. "The noise that emanates from it, the smell."

Capping freeways dates to the 1930s. A recent example is the Rose Kennedy Greenway over Boston's "Big Dig," which created open space by putting elevated roadways underground.

The resurgence of downtowns has turned available pieces of land into hot commodities. At the same time, the drumbeat for more parks in smog-choked cities is getting louder.

"It's essentially like creating oceanfront property," says Linda Owen, president of the Woodall Rodgers Park Foundation in Dallas. "It's an economic engine."

The group leads the effort to build a 5-acre park on the eight-lane Woodall Rodgers Freeway that runs north of downtown, between U.S. 75 and Interstate 35E. Traffic will be channeled to a tunnel. It's part of a bigger plan to revitalize the city's core and connect all corners of a 68-acre cultural district, from museums, restaurants and residential towers to a new opera hall and performing arts center.

"The freeway is like our medieval wall," Owen says. "You couldn't get over it. ... The park is just being created out of thin air."


Similar projects are under review in:

• Los Angeles and Santa Monica, Calif. There are four proposals to "cap" obsolete sections of the 101 or Hollywood Freeway — in Hollywood and downtown Los Angeles — and I-10 in Santa Monica with parks and developments that mix residential, retail and office uses.
The area's density makes it difficult to create parkland, but old freeways offer vast spaces that can be used, says Vaughan Davies, the architect and urban designer leading some of the efforts.
"The one in downtown Los Angeles encompasses 100 acres of land and the park itself is about 15 to 20 acres," he says. It would connect Union Station, Chinatown and Olvera Street with City Hall and Little Tokyo.
Another plan would bring a park and school on 40 acres over the Hollywood Freeway through a largely residential area. In Santa Monica, an old section of I-10 would link the area near the Santa Monica Pier with the civic center.

• Cincinnati. In a city that has more expressway interchanges per mile than most cities, freeways cut off the downtown from its riverfront near the confluence of I-75 and I-71. "We need to reconnect downtown to the river," says Michael Moore, interim director of transportation and engineering. Several exits were consolidated to create Fort Washington Way, opening about 16 acres of unused space for development and 40 acres for a park on the banks of the Ohio River.

• St. Louis. A design competition is underway to connect the Gateway Arch grounds and downtown over I-70, which divides the two. A non-profit citizen group, City to River, proposes removing a section of the interstate that is not needed since traffic has been shifted to a new bridge north of the Arch. Turning it into a 1.4-mile boulevard and parkway would "create more valuable real estate, close to the Arch," says Rick Bonasch, a member. "This boulevard would connect downtown casinos, hotels, sports stadiums and the historic riverfront."

The projects face relatively little opposition, Harnik says. "The green movement wants more parkland, and the development community wants a beautiful, quiet park instead of a noisy freeway to build residential or office buildings around them," he says. "The payback in ... economic value is high enough to make the whole thing worthwhile."

This is something I'd really like to see happen in Tulsa. With the ARRA funding rebuilding the North (& West) legs of the IDL, it's clear those aren't going away any time soon (though I wish we could have used the $75 mil to remove  or bury the North or East legs and rehab the others). The South leg provides us an opportunity to do something like these highway 'caps'. It's already sunken, so that step is already accomplished. It would go a long way in re-establishing the link between Downtown and Riverview, and would be especially beneficial to establishing the link between Downtown and the Arkansas River. Not only would it give us the chance to create green from grey, but it also provides development opportunities. It's almost like a 'reverse' TOD. The potential is huge! (And we could call it 'Cap and Trade' )

Here's a little map I've done showing some possibilities... Restored connections and development/park potential:

[carltonplace]

I remember an Uptown plan from the Savage days that incorporated capping of 51 from Main to Cheyenne.

[TheArtist]

I would like to see something like this done over the railroad tracks somewhere north and east of the BOK Arena.

http://www.continental-realestate.com/retail/projectDetails.cfm?pID=20

[sgrizzle]

Jack Crowley has some of this in his downtown master plan. Although he moved parking onto the caps and then put the parks where the parking used to be as every place where you put dirt and grass over concrete ends up being a major problem.

[Red Arrow]

... as every place where you put dirt and grass over concrete ends up being a major problem.

Water loading?

[dbacks fan]

Phoenix did this some time ago when I-10 was built through central Phoenix. Here is a pic. It's about a half mile long and is home to a park named Deck Park, and the Burton Barr Library. I thought that stretch of 51 should have been this way after seeing it here on a vacation in 1987. It helps keep the flow of Central Avenue into downtown as part of the city instead of having I-10 as divider.




Central Ave and the light rail are elevated over the park so that the park runs continuosly for about a half mile.

[Conan71]

Capping would be a good idea if we weren't driving around on something akin to chat gravel around the rest of Tulsa right now.  Anyone see how poorly Yale has been put back together between 36th & 31st where they've been doing the sewer line project?  I'd be too embarrassed to turn in an invoice if that were my work.  Speaking of road projects, anyone heard an update of where we are at with that big package we approved as far as funds collected and work that's been/being performed?

[sgrizzle]

Water loading?

That's part of it, plus the fact that organic stuff moves. Roots intrude, dirt settles, etc. There are plans to redo the williams green to an arrangement with no fountains and much less dirt., partially due to water leaking into the garage below.

[nathanm]

I'd love to see a cap, but I don't think we really need a linear park in that area. I think a focus on the streetscape would be more useful. Over the BA, at least, a lot of good could be done in that way.

[DowntownDan]

Seems very, very expensive and unnecessary in Tulsa.  Our IDL essentially loops completely around our downtown.  There is plenty of room for infill within the IDL, tons of parking lots, abandoned buildings, and potential greenspaces that don't require "capping" a freeway.  Our downtown setup is pretty much ideal considering that the major highways don't cut through it, but loops all the way around it.  I say spend the money redeveloping a building or building a new park on an abandoned lot.

[custosnox]

Seems very, very expensive and unnecessary in Tulsa.  Our IDL essentially loops completely around our downtown.  There is plenty of room for infill within the IDL, tons of parking lots, abandoned buildings, and potential greenspaces that don't require "capping" a freeway.  Our downtown setup is pretty much ideal considering that the major highways don't cut through it, but loops all the way around it.  I say spend the money redeveloping a building or building a new park on an abandoned lot.

I think one of the biggest arguments for capping the IDL is the fact that it loops completely around downtown.  It's almost a noose that threatens to strangle the life out of it by cutting it off from the rest of the city.  I know this is a little over dramatic, but it paints the picture.  By capping the IDL, at least in part, it would give a way to reconnect it with the surrounding communities.

[nathanm]

Seems very, very expensive and unnecessary in Tulsa.  Our IDL essentially loops completely around our downtown.  There is plenty of room for infill within the IDL, tons of parking lots, abandoned buildings, and potential greenspaces that don't require "capping" a freeway.  Our downtown setup is pretty much ideal considering that the major highways don't cut through it, but loops all the way around it.  I say spend the money redeveloping a building or building a new park on an abandoned lot.

The point is to remove the isolation between "inside" the IDL and "outside" the IDL. It makes for a more vibrant neighborhood. I saw it first hand in Columbus. (My sister used to live there) It's a completely different feeling now traveling along High north of downtown. While it didn't singlehandedly revive the Short North (it was slowly turning around on its own), it solidified the new "alive" vibe, which in turn helped preserve all they had recently gained in new development and activity downtown.

What amazes me is that they managed to do it (and were successful!) even as the Easton Town Center and all the stuff on Polaris Parkway were being developed far off in the suburbs.

The current configuration of 51 downtown lends itself to very easy capping along one or more of the streets crossing overhead. I would be surprised if some of the bridges aren't already getting long in the tooth, so any such project could be done as part of a bridge replacement. It doesn't cost all that much more to double the width and build a couple of 2-3 story buildings on either side of it.

It would be a lot harder to come up with the money to do something similar with the rest of the IDL, which is above grade rather than below.

[Conan71]

I know this is a little over dramatic,

Couldn't resist:

[custosnox]

Couldn't resist:

yeah yeah, at least I admited it

[dsjeffries]

The point is to remove the isolation between "inside" the IDL and "outside" the IDL. It makes for a more vibrant neighborhood. I saw it first hand in Columbus.

The current configuration of 51 downtown lends itself to very easy capping along one or more of the streets crossing overhead. I would be surprised if some of the bridges aren't already getting long in the tooth, so any such project could be done as part of a bridge replacement. It doesn't cost all that much more to double the width and build a couple of 2-3 story buildings on either side of it.

It would be a lot harder to come up with the money to do something similar with the rest of the IDL, which is above grade rather than below.

Nathanm is right. There's movement in downtown, but it is choked off from ALL of the surrounding neighborhoods thanks to the noose (great comparison, custosnox) that is the IDL. And it doesn't have to be parks. It could be buildings. Shops. Apartments. Offices. I seriously wouldn't recommend just slapping some parking lots on it though--we have way too much of that as it is, and we might as well make it something interesting, useful and unique. I think a combination of parks and structures would make for a really interesting area and a great way to reconnect downtown to its nearby neighbors.