PhillyTablet Inquirer Daily News
philly.com
email
font size
comments
5
options
 
Thursday, December 4, 2008

 As Democrats in Washington plot billions in federal transportation aid and work projects, ex-Milwaukee mayor and "New Urbanism" city-revival advocate John O. Norquist has a proposal for Philadelphia's I-95 Delaware Expressway: Knock it down.

"New York's West Side Highway is gone. San Francisco's Embarcadero Freeway - gone. I-95 should never have been built through the city," Norquist told me on a swing through Philly to pick up a city planners' award from the Ed Bacon Foundation (http://www.edbacon.org/).

Sounds crazy. How would commuters, produce trailers and airport shuttles, and Phillies, Eagles and concert fans pass crowded South Philly, Society Hill and Port Richmond without the elevated freeway? Trucks and buses can use I-295 in Jersey, or a better Blue Route, Norquist said. Meanwhile, "local traffic vanishes into the [street] grid." Of course, you'll want to widen some of those streets.

He's not the only highway-buster. "Obama's going to be dumping a lot of money for infrastructure improvement. Why not use some of it to unlock your waterfront?" said Center City-based developer Samuel Sherman Jr., head of the Building Industry Association of Philadelphia. Sherman figures it'd be better to use that money to improve city streets and SEPTA lines, and "reclaim" the waterfront cut off by construction 30 years ago.

It's more likely, for now, that cash-strapped officials like Mayor Nutter are going to jump at almost any giant project that comes their way, like a double-decker Schuylkill Expressway, or Hill International Inc.'s tenant-challenged 1,500-foot American Commerce Center tower. But Norquist's and Sherman's walker-friendly vision is seductive. Just make sure there's enough alternate routes, and river bridges.

Posted by Joseph N. DiStefano @ 8:26 AM  Permalink | 5 comments
Comments   
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 11:16 AM, 12/04/2008
    Norquist's comments are deceptive, at least with regard to New York. The West Side Highway is not "gone," unless it has disappeared since I drove on it two weeks ago. While not a freeway, the WSH is far from being an ordinary urban street. It has only a few traffic lights at the most major intersections. It has little commercial development (although there are parks along the Hudson side of the highway). Even more important, Philadelphia lacks the wide avenues that carry much of the north-south traffic in Manhattan. And Mr Norquist overlooks the fact that Manhattan also has the FDR Drive on the east side of the island. Oh, and NYC has mass transit and regional rail service that Philadelphia can only dream about. Major cities NEED major highways to carry traffic into and through them. "New urbanists" are delusional if they think motor traffic can be ignored or diverted.
    Steve Wood
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:28 PM, 12/04/2008
    Norquist is on crack. He makes a simpleton solutiuon for a complex problem. I've driven on the secondary streets when there is major traffic on I-95. It is not pretty. We've been talking about developing the waterfront for decades and using I-95 as the excuse for all it's woes.
    TronSector82
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 4:54 PM, 12/04/2008
    You can't simply make the thousands of cars that use 95 every day "disappear in the street grid." The first poster is right, the solution is to bury 95 and 676 (both of which are already kind of buried), cap them in a way that you can run roads and contruct buildings on top. Then you have your major artery and you can extend the street grid to the river. Expensive--yes. But there's really no alternative.
    ChrisInConshy
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 8:26 AM, 12/05/2008
    you don't have to completely bury 95 like the fiasco in Boston (big dig), but covering most of it would do a lot. Part of the issue is the fact that this was an industrial waterfront 30-40 years ago, not a pretty picture perfectlittle village. Everyone dreams of creating another Inner Harbor with their water front and everyone misses the reasons there is only one Inner harbor. We need to sweep away the illusion and accept the reality. First, the inner harbor was an industrial waste land owned almost entirely by Bethlehem Steel. Once the dockyards were shut down for good, Bethlehm sold the land for $1 to the City of Baltimore. That won't happen here. The remaining properties were also picked up cheap. Second, Baltimore has always had a vibrant relationship with its water front (fells point, little Itqly, the general bay culture) while Philly has always look landward. That is one of the reasons the Delaware River, the second largest natural harbor in the world, has been underdeveloped for over a 100 years. Finally, the individuals who built the inner harbor were private developers who understood planning and the need to avoid a grand political gesture that is just a photo op for politicians. The ingredients are just not here in Philly. What will work? First cover the highway as much as possible and limit the noise. Second, Create a series of residential, light commercial (shops, markets, restaurants), neighborhood enclaves. Keep the night clubs in the area where they are further north. build marinas off the restaurants and charge a nominal fee for boaters to come. Work with NJ & DE on creating a series of boating destinations, events, races, etc. around the river and bay to gradually build a boater culture. Boaters have $$ to spend. Do it al;l in increments based on a gradual approach taking 10 years. The inner harbor was built over 25 years and is still being built, piece by piece.
    dutchman


5 comments
About Joseph N. DiStefano
Joseph N. DiStefano writes this blog to feed his PhillyDeals column in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Joe has been a member of Bloomberg LP’s New York Finance Team, wrote the book “Comcasted,” taught writing at St. Joseph’s University, and studied economics and history at Penn. Reach Joe at 215-854-5194 and JoeD@phillynews.com