Street Widening Demolition

What's happening in our built environment.
Another example of taxpayers paying to destroy the city's tax base to accommodate cars. Tough to look at.

Stltoday - Photos: Work in the '20s and '30s widened several St. Louis streets

https://www.stltoday.com/news/archives/ ... 205e1.html
quincunx wrote: Another example of taxpayers paying to destroy the city's tax base to accommodate cars. Tough to look at.

Stltoday - Photos: Work in the '20s and '30s widened several St. Louis streets
As much as I would enjoy to join in on the hate for smog producing automotive vehicles and associated planning for them, this statement seems disingenuous. Planning for street widenings of this era all date back to before 1920 and included city beautification and rapid transit as equally important rational for the projects. Heck, there are multiple references that being located on a street where widening was performed was often desired as commercial buildings on these streets were given higher appraisal values owing to the increased traffic that passed in front of them. Widening projects that were completed included Washington and Olive and 12th; not completed, Kingshighway and Grand (made obvious by the additional 20ft setback of buildings on the block between Juniata and Connecticut) .

For reference: A Major Street Plan for St. Louis (1917)
one of the greatest inventions in the history of man kind most be destroyed! and we all must settle up on horses again!

also, drivers are 90% of the the regions taxpayers....so i guess they're paying for their on accommodations :?
mill204 wrote:
Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:20 pm
quincunx wrote: Another example of taxpayers paying to destroy the city's tax base to accommodate cars. Tough to look at.

Stltoday - Photos: Work in the '20s and '30s widened several St. Louis streets
As much as I would enjoy to join in on the hate for smog producing automotive vehicles and associated planning for them, this statement seems disingenuous. Planning for street widenings of this era all date back to before 1920 and included city beautification and rapid transit as equally important rational for the projects. Heck, there are multiple references that being located on a street where widening was performed was often desired as commercial buildings on these streets were given higher appraisal values owing to the increased traffic that passed in front of them. Widening projects that were completed included Washington and Olive and 12th; not completed, Kingshighway and Grand (made obvious by the additional 20ft setback of buildings on the block between Juniata and Connecticut) .

For reference: A Major Street Plan for St. Louis (1917)
It is a bit disingenuous, especially when you consider that the city's tax base only continued to grow for another 20-30 years after these projects were completed. There's also an aerial shot of the city looking east down the completed Olive corridor, I'd hardly say the urban fabric was destroyed all that much for this project. Now, Mill Creek, the Mall, Near North, Arch clearance and others are what really set STL back, but most of those came later.

I saw this in the St. Louis history, vintage photos, etc page on Facebook and got into it with a guy who was shitting all over the city because of this. The suburbanites were out in force with the pitchforks on this one for some reason. "St. Louis doesn't know anything about preservation!" "St. Louis tears down anything of importance." "St. Louis doesn't understand history!" Insanity. Maybe It's because I now live in a smaller city with nearly zero preservation protections where historic structures are routinely demolished without so much as a discussion, but I just don't get the constant hate. STL made some huge mistakes in the past, but it was also at one time going to lose Lafayette Square for a highway, Soulard for something resembling the current Clinton-Peabody complex, the Arcade was nearly demolished for a parking garage, same with OPO, not to mention the thousands of other successes STL has seen with old buildings and neighborhoods. Outside of Chicago there are very few (if any) Midwestern cities that can claim the density and architecture St. Louis can. Such a shame so many others in the St. Louis region don't get it.
Harland Bartholomew says it was for auto needs in this part of the 1947 plan.
Notice how he cites the induced demand of that effort to make his case to take it to the next level.
Since 1916 St. Louis has expended over $40,000,000 in opening, widening, connecting, and extending the system of major streets. Much has been accomplished in converting a horse and buggy street system to automobile needs. As the total volume of traffic increases, however, certain new needs arise. An example is the desirability of grade separations at extremely heavy intersections, such as at Grand and Market and at Kingshighway and Lindell. Likewise there is a need for complete separation of grade where traffic volume is sufficiently heavy to justify the cost involved. The Federal Government, which has helped finance our splendid system of national highways, has recently revised its policies and Congress has appropriated substantial funds to aid the cities in the construction of express highways and for facilitation of traffic flows from certain selected state highways through metropolitan areas to the central business districts of large cities
http://www.urbanreviewstl.com/2017/10/o ... rtholomew/