Reviving Urbanism

REVIVING URBANISM:

Elevated Freeways, Boulevards, and Urban Renewal

James May

Candidate for Master of Community Planning

Auburn University

School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape Architecture

Spring 2012

REVIVING URBANISM

i

Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2

History of the Urban Freeway ...................................................................................................................... 5

Pre-history ................................................................................................................................................. 5

It was never meant to go there................................................................................................................. 6

Birth of the Urban Freeway .................................................................................................................. 6

Futurama ............................................................................................................................................... 7

Highway and the City ............................................................................................................................ 9

How did we get here? ............................................................................................................................. 10

Urban Renewal.................................................................................................................................... 10

Urban Transportation ......................................................................................................................... 11

Total Approach .................................................................................................................................... 12

Urban Revival .......................................................................................................................................... 13

Freeway Removal ................................................................................................................................ 13

The Boulevard ..................................................................................................................................... 16

Research Design ......................................................................................................................................... 17

Octavia Boulevard, Hayes Valley, San Francisco, CA ................................................................................ 25

Boulevard Design .................................................................................................................................... 27

Impact Zone ............................................................................................................................................ 29

Rose Kennedy Greenway, North End, Boston, MA ................................................................................... 32


Impact Zone ............................................................................................................................................ 37

McKinley Avenue, Haymarket, Milwaukee, WI ........................................................................................ 39


Impact Zone ............................................................................................................................................ 44

REVIVING URBANISM

ii

Table of Contents (cont.) Impact Analysis........................................................................................................................................... 46

Population Density .................................................................................................................................. 46

Population Diversity ................................................................................................................................ 48

Racial Diversity .................................................................................................................................... 48

Age Diversity ....................................................................................................................................... 51

Employment ............................................................................................................................................ 53

Housing Density ...................................................................................................................................... 55

Structural Age ......................................................................................................................................... 58

Occupancy ............................................................................................................................................... 61

Development Density .............................................................................................................................. 64

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 67

REVIVING URBANISM

iii

Table of Figures Figure 1: Octavia Boulevard, San Francisco, CA. Image provided by ESRI ArcGIS. Measurements are

approximate.................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 2: Octavia Boulevard Pedestrian Realm, Southbound, San Francisco, CA. Image provided by

Google Earth. ................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 3: Octavia Boulevard Pedestrian Realm, Local Lane Entrance, San Francisco, CA. Image provided

by Google Earth. ............................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 4: Octavia Boulevard Pedestrian Realm, Northbound, San Francisco, CA. Image provided by

Google Earth. ................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 5: Hayes Valley Impact Zone. Map created using ESRI ArcGIS 10. . Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 6: Rose Kennedy Greenway, Boston, MA. Image provided by ESRI ArcGIS. Measurements are


Figure 7: Rose Kennedy Greenway Pedestrian Realm, Boston, MA. Image provided by Google Earth.

....................................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 8: Rose Kennedy Greenway Pedestrian Realm, Boston, MA. Image provided by Google Earth.


Figure 9: Rose Kennedy Greenway, Boston, MA. Image provided by Google Earth. . Error! Bookmark not

defined.

Figure 10: North End Impact Zone. Map created using ESRI ArcGIS 10. .... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 11: McKinley Avenue, Milwaukee, WI. Image provided by ESRI ArcGIS. Measurements are


Figure 12: McKinley Avenue Pedestrian Realm, Westbound Facing West, Milwaukee, WI. Image

provided by Google Earth. ............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 13: McKinley Avenue Pedestrian Realm, Westbound Facing East, Milwaukee, WI. Image


Figure 14: McKinley Avenue Pedestrian Realm, Eastbound Facing East, Milwaukee, WI. Image provided

by Google Earth. ............................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 15: McKinley Avenue, Milwaukee, WI. Image provided by Google Earth. ..... Error! Bookmark not

defined.

Figure 16: McKinley Avenue Pedestrian Realm, Eastbound Facing West, Milwaukee, WI. Image


Figure 17: Haymarket Impact Zone. Map created using ESRI ArcGIS 10. ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 18: Population Density per Acre, Hayes Valley, San Francisco, CA. Error! Bookmark not defined.

REVIVING URBANISM

iv

Figure 19: Population Density per Acre, North End, Boston, MA. ............... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 20: Population Density per Acre, Haymarket, Milwaukee, WI. ......... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 21: Diversity Index - Race, Hayes Valley, San Francisco, CA. ......... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 22: Diversity Index - Race, North End, Boston, MA. ........................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table of Figures (cont.) Figure 23: Diversity Index - Race, Haymarket, Milwaukee, WI. .................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 26: Diversity Index - Age, Hayes Valley, San Francisco, CA. .......... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 26: Diversity Index - Age, North End, Boston, MA. .......................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 26: Diversity Index - Age, Haymarket, Milwaukee, WI. ................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 27: Generational Frequency, Hayes Valley, San Francisco, CA. ....... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 28: Generational Frequency, North End, Boston, MA. ...................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 29: Generational Frequency, Haymarket, Milwaukee, WI. ................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 31: Labor Participation, Hayes Valley, San Francisco, CA................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 31: Unemployment, Hayes Valley, San Francisco, CA. ..................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 33: Labor Participation, North End, Boston, MA. .............................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 33: Unemployment, North End, Boston, MA. .................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 35: Labor Participation, Haymarket, Milwaukee, WI. ....................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 35: Unemployment, Haymarket, Milwaukee, WI. ............................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 38: Employment Type, Hayes Valley, San Francisco, CA. ................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 38: Employment Type, North End, Boston, MA. ............................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 38: Employment Type, Haymarket, Milwaukee, WI. ........................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 39: Housing Units per Acre, Hayes Valley, San Francisco, CA. ....... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 40: Housing Units per Acre, North End, Boston, MA. ....................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 41: Housing Units per Acre, Haymarket, Milwaukee, WI. ................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 42: Housing Units by Year Built, Hayes Valley, San Francisco, CA. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 43: Housing Units by Year Built, North End, Boston, MA. ............... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 44: Housing Units by Year Built, Haymarket, Milwaukee, WI. ........ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 45: Housing Occupancy, Hayes Valley, San Francisco, CA. ............. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 46: Housing Occupancy, Haymarket, Milwaukee, WI. ...................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 47: Housing Occupancy, North End, Boston, MA. ............................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 48: Increase of Development Density over Local Average, Hayes Valley, San Francisco, CA.


REVIVING URBANISM

v

Figure 49: Increase of Development Density over Local Average, North End, Boston, MA. ............. Error!

Bookmark not defined.

Figure 50: Increase of Development Density over Local Average, Haymarket, Milwaukee, WI. ....... Error!

Bookmark not defined.

REVIVING URBANISM

1

Abstract

Since the inception of a nationwide system of roadways planners and designers have

recognized the difficulty of integrating multi-lane, limited access freeways into the delicate

complexity of the urban form. Prominent planners and designers of the pre-Interstate era

advocated routing the expressways around urban centers, citing an incompatibility of land use.

Where expedience and politics won the day, the urban freeway cut through the urban fabric,

erected walls between and within communities, and impacted the value and use of property of

the surrounding area. As many elevated urban freeways approach the end of their useful

lifespans, requiring greater investment for upkeep and repair, several cities across the country

have adopted an alternative approach. From New York to San Francisco, Boston to Portland,

Milwaukee to New Orleans, municipalities have determined that the best way to mitigate the

effects of the urban freeway is to remove it.

By the end of the 20th

Century freeway removal had become a viable option for many

cities seeking to revive their urban fabric. After a half-century of experimentation with urban

expressways, urban planners have returned to the wisdom of the early planners and now seek to

revive the urbanism that once defined most major American cities. However, each city that has

attempted to revive the urban form with the removal of an urban freeway has chosen a different

alternative for the replacement roadway. In The Boulevard Book Allan Jacobs, Elizabeth

MacDonald, and Yodan Rofe present a set of guidelines for the creation of a multi-use, mutli-

modal urban boulevard. Using these guidelines to measure three different freeway replacement

projects, this research explores the effect of boulevard design on urban renewal.

REVIVING URBANISM

2

Introduction

“Every act of creation is first of all an act of destruction.” – Pablo Picasso, artist

In March 1995, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, in coordination with the Brookings

Institute and the National Trust for Historic Preservation, held a conference titled “Alternatives

to Sprawl.” At this conference, attendees discussed the origins of, the problems associated with

and the potential solutions to the most common form of urban development in the United States.

Speakers at the conference included professional architects such as Peter Calthorpe and Andres

Duany, academics such as Robert Burchell of Rutgers and Peter Linneman of the University of

Pennsylvania, representatives from public interest organizations such as Rails-to-Trails

Conservancy and Urban Mobility Corporation, as well as the administrator of the Federal

Highway Administration.

This conference concluded that the causes of sprawl are complex, varied and engrained in

our national culture. From the pre-industrial age vision of Manifest Destiny to the mid-century

American Dream of a quarter-acre lot with a two-car garage, the culture of America has

promoted the occupation of space. This report cited two primary forms of land use that “result in

abandonment or underutilization of existing infrastructure in older neighborhoods, coupled with

duplication of services and infrastructure in sprawling newly developed areas.”1 According to

Richard Moe, the President of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, these land use forms

are “sellscape”, major arteries fenced by large-scale retail establishments requiring massive

parking lots, and “leapfrogging,” new single-family residential developments located on the

ever-elusive urban fringe.2 This low-density development pattern has led to a hyper-reliance on

the automobile as the primary, and in many instances sole, form of transportation.

REVIVING URBANISM

3

At the end of the report, Andres Duany, one of the founders of the Congress of New

Urbanism, identifies “the public realm – the street system – that is among the most degraded in

the world” as the central problem of sprawl. “It is stressful to use, ugly to look at, and expensive

to maintain.”3 This recognition of the street system as a primary driver of sprawl and urban

decay demands a re-imagination of the urban form. The report then details some of the negative

consequences of sprawl, including the drain on economic vitality and the detrimental health

effects of long commutes and exhaust fumes. To resolve and correct the pattern of sprawl, the

conference report suggests, among other treatments, a reinvestment in urban centers.

The major challenge for planners in the coming decades will be what Emily Talen, AICP

calls “sprawl repair.”4 In many locations, this will mean increasing the density of suburbs,

repurposing existing vacant structures, and improving the alternate transportation network. The

opposite end of sprawl repair will be the continued reinvigoration of our central cities as livable

environments for diverse populations. During the era of Urban Renewal, programs designed to

connect outlying areas with central cities resulted in the displacement of populations,

degradation of urban landscapes, and depletion of central city economic resources. The largest

program of this age, the Interstate Highway System, continues to pose significant obstacles to the

repair of the urban fabric.

The Congress of the New Urbanism has proposed as one of its major initiatives the

redesign of these behemoths from obtrusive urban barriers to multi-modal mixed-use

boulevards.5 Several cities across the nation have implemented highway removal schemes. More

than thirty years ago, Portland became the first American city to intentionally remove an urban

freeway, reviving its dormant waterfront. In response to the damage caused by a massive

REVIVING URBANISM

4

earthquake, San Francisco successfully converted two urban freeways, the Embarcadero and the

Central Freeway, to attractive urban thoroughfares. Boston famously buried its Central Artery

beneath a linear park during the Big Dig. In 2011, the American Planning Association awarded

the city of New Orleans the National Planning Achievement Award for a Hard-Won Victory for

the city-wide plan that included the replacement of I-10 in the center of the city with a renewed

Claiborne Avenue.6

Many municipalities across the country are considering removing their urban freeways.

From Cleveland, Ohio to New Haven, Connecticut, local planners have sought to revitalize urban

cores by removing the largest piece of single-use infrastructure from the urban landscape.7

However, the success of this new era of urban renewal has not been uniform. San Francisco has

seen economic growth and has been spared the predicted traffic nightmare. 8 Conversely, while

some improvements have been made over the last few years, Milwaukee, Wisconsin has not yet

seen the promised economic bonanza nearly a decade after removing the freeway, though

progress had no doubt been slowed by global economic factors.9 Clearly, the simple act of

demolition will not correct the economic degradation that surrounds so many urban freeways.

Cities face several decision points after the demolition of the urban freeway as they seek

the redevelopment of the area and the revival of the urban form. The challenges include traffic

mitigation, contextual design, economic development, and population return. How these cities

respond to these challenges often determines the success or failure of the urban renewal project.

By analyzing three key intra-urban freeway removal projects, common themes may emerge to

better prepare other municipalities as they undertake the herculean effort to remove the urban

freeway, repair the urban fabric, and revive the urban form. This paper will attempt to determine

REVIVING URBANISM

5

the requisite factors for the successful conversion of an urban freeway to a mixed-use urban

boulevard.

History of the Urban Freeway

Pre-history

Throughout the ages, governments have razed sections of the urban fabric and converted

the space to roadway. Kostof traces this pattern of destruction and development beginning with

the “facelifts” of ceremonial axes through Hellenistic cities and ending with the sventramenti

(disemboweling) of Italy under the heavy hand of Mussolini. Prior to the Baroque Period, when

governments built or widened streets, the intent was to connect two points to better facilitate

communication. In Rome, for example, Via Giulia connects Ponte Sisto, the pilgrims’ entrance

to the city, to the church of San Giovanni die Fiorentini on the western most curve in the river.

The connection “cut(s) willfully through a built area, running counter to the existing street net.”10

Later, the reshaping of Paris by Baron Haussmann, and the gutting of Rome by Mussolini,

sought to create vistas for the traveler and to display the power of the state. To improve

connections or to display power, “the regime will attack the most defenseless, unresisting bits of

the city, the live tissue around the solid anchors of historic piles, the tissue that happens

unfailingly to be the densest and most restive neighborhoods of working-class families, the urban

poor, small craftspeople.”11 This trend continued in the United States with the construction of the

Interstate Highway.

REVIVING URBANISM

6

It was never meant to go there

“motorway – for that means a right of way explicitly designed for and adapted to

the uses of motor traffic.” – Norman Bel Geddes, designer12

Birth of the Urban Freeway

When professional planners gathered for their first national conference in 1909 the

automobile had not yet taken its dominant position among transportation alternatives. Attendees

addressed transportation in the context of land use, asserting that “land use would determine the

size and kinds of transportation facilities needed.”13 With an emphasis on “multi-modalism,”14

the conference sought to integrate transportation with the other major activities of urban living.

Not only did conferees fail to recognize the force of the automobile in defining urban form, it

barely registered as a topic of conversation at this first conference. Rather than simply

facilitating movement, attendees sought to create a coordinated transportation system “to provide

access to healthier living, especially recreational facilities.”15

However, within twenty years, the automobile had assumed its role as the preferred mode

of transportation. Planners recognized that accommodating the massive numbers of automobiles

in a safe and responsible system required segregation rather than integration. Adapting

characteristics from rural parkways for an urban context, these planners designed grade-

separated, limited-access freeways for automobiles and transit vehicles. By eliminating all

unnecessary impediments to traffic flow, this new system reduced the risk of collision while

increasing speeds, both on the freeway and on cross streets.16

Planners advocated multiple

freeways throughout the urban fabric to facilitate short internal trips. Above all, freeways were

seen as “tools for urban renewal, particularly to revive flagging central business districts,

facilitate slum clearance, direct growth into desired areas, and, over time, slow suburban

REVIVING URBANISM

7

sprawl.”17

They recognized freeways as a particular type of land use that “would provide great

benefits if sited and scaled properly, but . . . could be highly disruptive if they were not.”18

Shortly after the invention of the urban freeway, the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE)

adopted a hierarchical system of roadway management, called Functional Classification. This

system reversed existing ideas of street importance. Traditionally, the most important street had

the tallest buildings, the most activity and the highest economic rent. Under the new system,

mobility became the primary concern, accessibility its inverse. Automobiles were discouraged

from using residential streets in favor of multi-lane freeways with few amenities and fewer

access points. The urban freeway had displaced Main Street as the most important roadway in

the city.

Futurama

At the 1939 World’s Fair in New York City, Norman Bel Geddes presented his vision of

a utopian metropolis. Dubbed Futurama, this scale model and the accompanying film, ride and

book, Magic Motorways, proposes the restructuring of American cities to facilitate the dominant

form of transportation: the automobile. The sponsors of this exhibit, General Motors,

commissioned Bel Geddes to construct this model as the focal point for their entry to the fair,

“Highways and Horizons.” The model did not argue for or against the car, but simply accepted

its prominence and sought to mitigate its effects by focusing on the four principles of road

building: safety, comfort, speed, and economy. 19

In Magic Motorways Bel Geddes identifies the four major attributes of roadway design

that cause “delay, congestion, exasperated drivers, more accidents.”20

Crossings bring

congestion; hazards at the road edge force drivers to the center of the roadway; cars moving in

REVIVING URBANISM

8

opposite directions create hazards at the center; speed variation creates hazards within the lane of

travel. To mitigate these dangers, Bel Geddes proposes a new form of urban design that

completely separates the automobile from the rest of the urban form. Although acknowledged as

a land use, the urban roadways of Futurama are independent of and protected from their

surroundings. 21

All roadways occupy the ground level of the urban form. The urban roadways would

offer two levels of service, express and local. Similar to the proposals for the early urban

freeways, express roads maintain their trajectory by leaping over and under the local roads.

Above the “automobile only” level, pedestrians take advantage of the retail and business

opportunities along wide overhanging walkways and overpasses. Above this, offices and

residents fill the massive towers that punctuate this utopia. The separation of uses and the

segregation of people from cars offer promises of safety and convenience. However, this

proposal not only reinforces the ideal of an automobile centered society, it removes man from his

place of prominence. The car owns the ground level and man must be content to navigate along

overpasses and within protective walls.

Bel Geddes design approach of separate places for separate uses doe not end at the city

limits. He also argues for the separation of interstate travel and local travel. To traverse the great

continental expanse, Bel Geddes suggests the construction of massive interstate roadways that

connect urban centers. Bel Geddes’ motorways run parallel to urban centers, providing off-ramps

and feeder routes to the established grids of urban areas. By-passes, he argues, decrease trip time

and trip cost for the interstate traveler, allow for the construction of shorter routes between cities,

and increase safety for local and non-local traffic.22

Bel Geddes even presciently warns against

REVIVING URBANISM

9

allowing these by-pass routes to be exploited by developers wishing “to use every eye-catching

device to stop cars which must maintain an even flow if the by-pass is to serve its purpose.”23

Although Futurama admitted, and even celebrated, the dominance of the automobile, it warned

against the detrimental effects of confusing urban form with high speed travel.

Highway and the City

The Federal Highway Act of 1938 charged the Bureau of Public Roads with the design

and development of a system of six national superhighways to connect population centers across

the country. The initial proposal, a toll system, did not enter urban areas, but served as by-pass

routes for through traffic. After determining that the tolls would not provide sufficient funds for

the maintenance of this system, the Bureau proposed an alternative plan for free inter-regional

highways. This alternative system improved and expanded existing roads to facilitate

connections between major urban centers. While the largest cities would be encircled by beltline

by-pass routes, the majority of cities and towns would see these free highways, or freeways, run

directly through them.24

Thus, the urban freeway and the inter-regional highway became one.

After languishing in the United States Congress for nearly two decades, the proposal for a

national system of inter-regional highways finally won passage and funding with the National

Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956. To win the votes of urban legislators, the design

of the interstate highway system included explicit routes for the urban sections of the highways

resulting from a process that included little input from local officials. In just eight months, all

urban sections of the national highway system had been determined. Local officials, who saw the

highway as an engine for urban renewal, could either accede to the federally determined routes

or surrender the funds.25

Additionally, state highway engineers had taken primary responsibility

REVIVING URBANISM

10

for the design and construction of freeways and tended to promote rural transportation over

urban form, or worse, their own parochial interests.26

Upon implementation, “many existing multiway boulevards were reconfigured; their

central roadways were widened and, in some cases, turned into recessed limited-access

expressways.”27

Yet when these local routes were reconfigured for non-local traffic, this only

served to impede the traveler’s progress, lowering speeds as the roadway entered the urban area,

introducing more traffic through more access points, and diminishing the value of the roadway

for through transportation.28

Additionally, the town suffered as motorists brought congestion,

noise, and contempt for a town that had become another “nuisance along the straightaway.”29

By

conflating the urban freeway and the inter-regional highway, road builders frustrated both local

and non-local travelers and impeded both local and non-local trips.

How did we get here?

“the automobile has virtually destroyed cities as they once were.” – Allan Jacobs,

planner

Urban Renewal

Through the half-century of its existence, the Interstate Highway System has brought

tremendous advantages for the nation, from increased mobility to rapid economic expansion.30

However, it has also brought significant detriment to the urban areas through which it passes.

Though the intent of the Interstate Highway System was to remove blight, and attract the middle-

class back to the central city, the effect was the exact opposite. Having razed the existing

community of the inner-city and dislocated the population, the urban freeways left in their wake

racialized poverty and dilapidated infrastructure starved for investment.31

REVIVING URBANISM

11

Yet again, Bel Geddes proves prescient, though he sees this alteration of the city as a

necessarily positive outcome of his proposal. He admits that new roadways offering travel at

higher speeds will increase the number of automobiles and their use. His proposal celebrates the

separation of uses and the increase of travel distance. With a nationwide system of roadways that

connect country to city and focuses commercial development in dense urban clusters, “Cities

tend to become centers for working, the country districts centers for living.”32 He argues that

cities should only “serve as occupational units, nerve-centers, headquarters.”33

This view of cities

as useful only for commerce and business matched the views of many contemporary planners

who saw cities as “congested, sclerotic, cancered, gangrenous,”34

and unfit for human habitation.

The adoption of the urban freeway made cities obsolete for anything but commerce and

business. Urban form was reduced to a series of “pods placed off freeway ramps.”35 This new

urban pattern can be seen as a combination of the Radiant City, with its sweeping roadways as

advocated by Bel Geddes, and the Garden City, with the discretely formed subdivisions

connected to the urban center by a single artery. However, in their zeal to escape the depravity of

the urban core, these utopian designers failed to recognize the benefits of urban life or the

purpose of an urban transportation system.36

Urban Transportation

The urban form brings together a variety of people, goods, and services into relatively

close proximity. This allows increased choice for consumption and for production, improved

quality of life through invention, and greater economic efficiency due to lowered cost of travel.37

In the words of Lewis Mumford, “A good transportation system minimizes unnecessary

transportation.”38

In 1966, Britton Harris, FAICP outlined several goals for urban transportation

systems, the most important being for transportation “to stop getting itself talked about.”39

To

REVIVING URBANISM

12

achieve this, Harris identifies a series of conflicts which must be overcome. Although Harris

approaches transportation as a whole, two conflicts relate directly to the development of urban

freeways. First, “transportation is excessively space-consuming . . . disrupt(ing) and

disintegrate(ing) many of the few remaining opportunities which exist for pedestrian

interaction.”40

Second, “transportation as a service is insufficiently segregated from other urban

functions and services . . . it moves while other activities are stationary.”41

To resolve these

conflicts, Harris proposes an evolution of the transportation planning process to integrate

transportation planning with land use planning. As an intermediary service, transportation must

become a secondary goal for urban planners.

However, through the peak of urban freeway construction, Harris’s warnings went

unheeded as engineers erected massive urban freeways, demanding the rest of urban design to

work around them.42

Whether elevated or recessed, the urban freeway occupies massive

expanses of urban space. By creating an impenetrable wall within the urban fabric, it promotes

“separation of activities and discontinuity of the public realm.”43

Additionally, due to the desire

to maintain constant speeds, it cuts through the urban grain with little regard for community

boundaries or land use. The freeway negated the advantages of proximity to the urban core and

promoted development on the ever expanding, and consequently elusive, urban fringe. The

development of the freeway caused an epochal shift in urban development from a centripetal

force to a centrifugal force. Thus, sprawl predicated more sprawl.44

Total approach

After freeway construction reached its peak in the mid-1960s, the Department of

Transportation issued a report recommending improved practices for incorporating freeways

within urban fabric. In response to the revolts that had halted construction in several cities, most

REVIVING URBANISM

13

notably in San Francisco, the Department sought to repair the image of the freeway as an integral

piece of modern urban life. To achieve this, the report suggested designing urban freeways with

“multilevel, split-level, cantilevered, depressed, and elevated cross sections to yield a

concentration of traffic flow within a narrow right-of-way.”45

The problem of the freeway was its

size; conversion to a human scale would make the freeway more acceptable to the urban

residents. This design, later dubbed the “total approach,” buried freeways underground and

returned to the Futurama model of surrounding freeways with massive architecture and

pedestrian platforms.46

However, the total approach lasted only a decade as the cost of the design tended to

outweigh the assumed benefits. Though the freeway would occupy a narrow strip of urban space,

the report suggested a 500- to 1,000-foot right-of-way drawn from the urban fabric for the

development of transit corridors, civic structures and pedestrian zones.47

Where possible,

roadways would be capped, offering more open space for recreation and pedestrian activity.

Generally, however, pedestrians would be offered only the observation decks envisioned by Bel

Geddes, constrained by artificial barriers and protected from the primacy of the automobile.48

As

the total approach lost sway with freeway developers, urban freeway construction returned to

form as massive, land-consumptive monolithic barriers within the urban fabric.

Urban Revival

“In the town a road is not a route, it’s a polyvalent space.” – Laura Bonanomi,

architect

Freeway Removal

Beginning with the earliest proposals, planners, designers and engineers have attempted

to fit the urban freeway into its urban context. However, because the pedestrian must be

REVIVING URBANISM

14

separated from the roadway, the urban freeway has been unable to integrate successfully into a

vibrant urban environment. As these massive structures age into obsolescence, the areas

surrounding them continue their long marches into disarray. The urban freeway, decimating the

land it touches, continues to depress property value and repulse citizenry. But the decay of these

concrete walls brings opportunity for reinvestment. While most areas repair the dilapidated

structures, many have chosen to remove the freeway from the urban environment. By including

this option in the analysis of the infrastructure, municipalities can “better understand the

opportunity costs associated with using urban land for infrastructure.”49

In their call for a new Urban Design Manifesto, Allan Jacobs and Donald Appleyard

present a series of problems for modern urban design to address. Central to the issue of the urban

freeway are the first four: poor living environments, giantism and loss of control, large-scale

privatization and the loss of public life, and centrifugal fragmentation. Neighborhoods have

become lost in poisonous clouds of pollution and noise, surrounded by massive, faceless

installations of single purpose, private facilities, offering no connection to their surroundings.

This has pushed people into their cars and further out into the isolation of suburbs and exurbs

where social groups no longer interact.50 By expanding the focus beyond measures of mobility

and movement, urban designers and transportation planners can better balance the needs of

pedestrians and the needs of motorists for an integrated urban environment.51

This expanded

framework rejects the view of the freeway as savior of the central city through increased

mobility, recognizing the detrimental effects on inner-city neighborhoods, communities,

economic stability and the physical environment.52

The central city has once again gained

prominence as a valuable commodity; the collapse of the freeway makes this possible.53

REVIVING URBANISM

15

Cities across the country have recognized the advantages of a vibrant central business

district used for work space as well as living space and recreational space. Yet even as

populations and businesses return to the downtown, the success is constrained by the urban

freeway.54

City leaders see the deconstruction of the urban freeway as an opportunity to expand

the usable space for parks, retail, housing, and other more attractive uses that spark new

development.55

Large swaths of newly available urban land inspire urban politicians and

property owners with visions of waterfront developments, entertainment districts, sports venues

and other tourist attractions that promise economic growth.56

As local business leaders, historic

preservationists, environmentalists, real estate interests, planners and professors come together to

discuss the revival of the urban form, they find that each seek the removal of the urban

freeway.57

However, while these individuals represent powerful interests, they will require

leadership from a policy entrepreneur who can promote this idea with those who value mobility

more than urban development.58

The demolition of urban freeways improves access to the urban core for those

neighborhoods immediately surrounding it while restricting automobile access for those on the

periphery of the city.59 This shift in focus from regional transportation needs to the health, safety,

and economic vitality of the urban core represents a return to the planning goals articulated at the

1909 conference.60

However, while most laud the goals of urban revival, the issue of

automobility remains a serious concern for many municipalities.61

The demolition of a freeway,

some claim, will loose freeway traffic onto city streets and cause unprecedented congestion, a

transportation nightmare. Others, such as the Congress for the New Urbanism, claim that

removing roadway capacity “will encourage drivers to find different routes, take mass transit, or

REVIVING URBANISM

16

make fewer trips by car.”62

This theory of “reduced demand,” while supported by anecdotal

evidence, has not been studied as extensively as its opposite theory, “induced demand.”

The Boulevard

After removing the urban freeway, the municipality must decide how best to utilize the

public space for the benefit if the urban inhabitants. To repair the urban fabric while maintaining

a modicum of mobility, several urban areas have opted for the construction of a multi-use

boulevard. A boulevard offers lower carrying capacity than the urban freeway, but interacts with

the environment rather than destroying it. The boulevard has the ability to offer service for “fast-

moving through-traffic as well as slower local traffic within the same right-of-way but on

separate but closely connected roadways.”63

This combination of service allows the roadway to

serve automobiles while improving the urban form and adding value to the surrounding

neighborhoods.64

Where the urban freeway allowed large amounts of traffic to bypass the urban

amenities, an urban boulevard offers space “for the coexistence of parked vehicles, pedestrians,

cyclists and traffic streams of variable speed.”65

The central benefit of the urban boulevard lies in its ability to attract high levels of

density of use to the urban center. Where the mega-structures of Urban Renewal failed, the urban

boulevard succeeds. With multiple streams of traffic, both automobile and pedestrian, the urban

boulevard provides opportunities for travelers to leave the roadway and interact with the urban

texture. This interaction brings life to the area, where individuals can accomplish multiple tasks

and take part in a variety of activities without the interruption and isolation of the automobile.66

Multiple uses attract higher numbers of people, creating the density necessary for urban life. The

urban form that can attract this level of density and diversity does not map readily to the

REVIVING URBANISM

17

functional classification system, requiring a new understanding of roadways as part of the urban

fabric rather than connections between destinations.67

The Congress for the New Urbanism advocates the removal of urban freeways and the

construction of urban boulevards as a key process for the return to an urban form that is healthy,

attractive and efficient. A major concern for New Urbanists is the development of walkable

communities, incompatible with the urban freeway but integral to the development of a viable

urban boulevard.68

As Alex Marshall says, “Urbanism is a result of putting people and their

activities under pressure.”69

This pressure facilitates a return to pedestrianism and community.

With easy access to local stores, the New Urban community promotes the health of the local

economy as well as the health of the individual.70

By focusing on the health and safety of the

local community within the context of the urban environment, the New Urbanism movement

rejects the mid-20th

Century American Dream that brought devastation to urban centers and

sprawl to the surrounding areas. The conversion of an urban freeway to an urban boulevard

serves as the physical embodiment of this shift in attitude.

Research Design

The purpose of the urban freeway system, moving large amounts of traffic at high speeds

through densely developed areas, demands a rupture in the urban fabric that destroys the

surrounding communities. The removal of the urban freeway allows municipalities to reclaim

urban land for a new mixture of uses, attract a new population, build new structures, and repair

connections for travel. This dramatic alteration of the urban form represents a shift in focus away

from the movement of traffic through an area and toward the people, businesses, activities and

structures that define it. This shift invites new uses and multiple modes of transportation,

REVIVING URBANISM

18

rejecting the automobile as the exclusive form of travel. The revival of urbanism and walkable

communities signals a revival of density and choice, two key characteristics of a vibrant urban

community.

In The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs defines the four conditions

necessary for a vibrant urban community to prosper: a dense population; a diversity of uses; a

variety of building ages; and short, walkable blocks.71

First, a vibrant community requires a

dense population to provide eyes on the streets. This dense population must be diverse enough to

maintain support for a variety of uses. Moreover, a vibrant community is an open community,

comprised of a demographic distribution similar to the metropolis as a whole. A diversity index

can be calculated to determine the probability that two randomly selected individuals from the

population would be from the same class type. In a homogeneous area, the diversity index score

would be 1; in a heterogeneous area, where all class types are represented equally, the diversity

score approaches 0. The diversity index (D) is

� =�(� �⁄ )

where n is the total for each class type and N is the total population of the area. In economics this

is referred to as the Herfendahl Index; in ecology it is the Simpson Index. Here, this index is used

to determine the racial diversity and generational diversity of the local areas as compared to the

city as a whole. A low racial diversity index score suggests that the area is open and accessible to

all class types. A low generational diversity index score suggests a stable community wherein

individuals can age in place and families can enjoy the benefits of multiple generations living in

close proximity. In a vibrant urban community, the racial diversity index and the generational

diversity index is less than or equal to the respective diversity indices for the city.

REVIVING URBANISM

19

Second, a vibrant community requires a diversity of uses, residences, employment sites,

and entertainment venues, that attract a variety of people to the public realm throughout the day.

This live-work-play design allows individuals to achieve the majority of their daily needs within

a short distance and encourages walking or using other alternative modes of transportation.

Marshall suggests that a minimum density of ten homes per acre produces the requisite volume

of traffic to support local businesses.72

A variety of uses potentially provides a variety of

employment opportunities for the local population. A density of opportunity provides more

incentive for local residents to join the workforce and find gainful employment. Housing density

for the community, measured as the total number of housing units per acre, is compared to the

housing density for the city as well as to the minimum standard set by Marshall. Labor

participation rates, unemployment rates, and diversity of employment type are compared to the

city averages to determine the level of opportunity within the area. An area with housing density

below ten units per acre may not be able to provide a volume of traffic necessary to support local

businesses. A vibrant urban community has higher levels of housing density and higher rates of

employment with more variety than the city average.

Third, diversity of structure refers most directly to the age and condition of the buildings

in the area. This characteristic demands the preservation of old buildings, in various states of

repair, which allows a diversity of businesses to occupy the same district. Structural diversity

provides affordable accommodations to a variety of individuals for a variety of uses. When the

urban freeways were installed, entire city blocks were leveled. Generally, this decimation was

followed by underinvestment and decay. With the adoption of urban boulevards, the surrounding

buildings are rehabilitated and vacant lots are filled with new construction. Where existing

buildings have been maintained, these structures also offer the diversity of age and condition that

REVIVING URBANISM

20

add to a vibrant community. Housing construction, measured by the number of units built minus

the number of units destroyed, is compared to the rate of construction for the city. A vibrant

urban community will enjoy a balanced distribution of age among the structures. The pattern of

demolition and construction provides additional insight for the pace of development within the

area and the timing of investments.

The final condition calls for “short, walkable blocks,”73

with multiple opportunities to

change direction or turn a corner, creating a variety of paths, while also providing opportunities

for multiple modes of travel. In a vibrant community, individuals can walk, bike, drive, or take

mass transit to reach their destinations. The freeway limits the choice of path for travelers by

restricting access for non-automobile travelers. The removal of the urban freeway necessarily

improves the diversity of path for the area by offering pedestrians and other non-motorists

increased safety and access. A network of pathways helps distribute traffic while improving the

quality of path for travelers, providing them with the option to choose the path they prefer most.

Diversity of path requires quality, accessibility and economy, measured using the three-part

development density model provided by Chatman.

In his analysis of the effect of development density on travel behavior and mode choice,

Chatman identifies three types of density that define the urban form. First, high built form

density, “the density of structures on developed land,”74

improves the quality of the urban

environment and helps to promote walking. Chatman measures this as the sum of the residents

and employees divided by the developed acreage. Second, high activity density, “the number of

local desirable non-work activities,”75

shortens the average length of trips while increasing the

total number of non-work travel activities. Chatman equates this measure to the number of retail

REVIVING URBANISM

21

employees in the area. Third, high network load density, “the number of potential local

transportation system users per unit of transportation network capacity,”76

slows traffic speed

and incentivizes system users to choose other forms of transportation. Chatman measures this by

dividing the total population, the total employed population, the total number of retail workers,

and the total number of service employees independently by the total number of road miles.

These four numbers are then averaged together. When all three measures increase beyond the

median, Chatman found as much as a fourfold increase in walking and bicycling as

transportation alternatives.77

Although the practice of urban freeway removal offers nearly four decades of history

from which to draw examples, a limited number of case studies exist. Additionally, a large

portion of freeway removal projects have been part of waterfront revival efforts. To maintain

consistency, this research focuses only on the removal of urban freeways within the urban fabric,

ignoring freeway removals designed to revive waterfronts. While this decision narrows the

universe of potential case studies, it also removes confounding variables associated with the

natural amenity of the urban waterfront. To determine which intra-urban freeway removal

programs should be reviewed, this research relies upon the preconditions identified by Napolitan

and Zegras. First, questions must be raised over the structural integrity of the urban freeway for

the discussion to begin. Second, this discussion must fall within a window of opportunity for

removal to be considered a viable option. Third, mobility must lose its place as the prominent, if

not sole, concern. Finally, the decision to remove the freeway requires leadership from a policy

entrepreneur who can promote this idea with those who value mobility more than urban

development.78

Three intra-urban freeway removal projects, replaced by three design

alternatives, meet these four requirements: Octavia Boulevard in San Francisco, California; The

REVIVING URBANISM

22

Rose Kennedy Greenway in Boston, Massachusetts; and McKinley Avenue in Milwaukee,

Wisconsin.

Several considerations must be addressed prior to analyzing this case of freeway removal.

First, the freeway was technically not removed. However, the freeway runs underground,

allowing the surface to be converted to a mulit-purpose boulevard. Though not a traditional

boulevard, this roadway/greenway offers access for quick-moving through traffic, slower-moving

local traffic, parking, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Second, Napolitan and Zegras call for a policy

entrepreneur as the final condition for freeway removal. As this project required multiple levels of

government and at least two decades to complete, no one person can be identified as the driving

force. Several governors, representing both political parties, local officials and even the Speaker

of the United States House of Representatives all played a role in the design, funding and

implementation of this project. Third, the Central Artery served as an internal urban wall,

separating the North End community from the rest of downtown, as well as a wall along the

waterfront. While the total impact of the project can only be measured by analyzing the waterfront

revitalization as well as the reknitting of the urban form along the first section, the scope of this

study limits the analysis to only the land-locked section of the greenway.

In deciding to remove an elevated freeway from the urban fabric, all three case studies

sought to reknit the urban fabric and revive the urban form. However, each project has followed

a different design paradigm, fostering radically different results. In Boston, following the Total

Approach, the “Big Dig” produced a winding greenway above a buried multi-lane expressway.

In Milwaukee, adhering to more conventional standards of roadway design, a multilane avenue

replaced an underused freeway. In San Francisco, a mixed-use, pedestrian-focused roadway

REVIVING URBANISM

23

separates through traffic from local traffic following the design approach proposed by Jacobs,

MacDonald and Rofe in The Boulevard Book. Using the guidelines offered in The Boulevard

Book, each replacement design has been scored according to the three main areas necessary for a

mixed-use boulevard in a vibrant community that offers both density and choice. These design

guidelines are:

1) Automobile Realm

� The central portion of the boulevard should provide two to three lanes of

travel in both directions

� The central portion of the boulevard should provide an alternating turn

lane.

� A pedestrian refuge should be provided in the central portion.

� Central roadway lanes should be between 9.5 and 12 feet.

� Intersections should allow multiple directions of travel, from central

roadway to cross street, from cross street to access road, et cetera.

2) The Pedestrian Realm

� Buildings that line the boulevard should face the boulevard.

� The pedestrian realm should occupy at least 50% of the right-of-way.

� The pedestrian area should allow no more than one lane of local traffic to

encourage slow driving.

� Parking should be provided along the local lanes of the pedestrian area.

� Parking lanes should be between 6 and 9 feet.

� Access lanes should be between 7 and 11 feet.

REVIVING URBANISM

24

� Access roads should be differentiated from the central road and the cross

streets to remind drivers that they have entered a pedestrian area.

3) Medians

� Medians should be continuous divisions, from 5 to 50 feet wide, lined with

rows of trees.

� Trees should be spaced between 12 and 35 feet apart, depending upon the

species, creating a continuous overhead canopy.

� Public Transit should avoid the local travel lanes of the pedestrian area.

� Public Transit should provide access through the medians.

� Bicycle lanes should be incorporated between the pedestrian and central

realms.

There are multiple advantages to using this design approach. First, The Boulevard Book

provides a comprehensive analysis of boulevard design around the world and distills this

information into a set of concise guidelines. These guidelines have been condensed for the

purpose of this study to only those that can be measured from aerial photography and

cartographic images. Second, as the primary author of The Boulevard Book Allan Jacobs also

served as the primary designer of Octavia Boulevard. Third, this design approach meets the four

principles of road building established by Bel Geddes: safety, comfort, speed, and economy.

Finally, this design approach seeks to mitigate the four hazards defined by Bel Geddes as well as

the two conflicts identified by Harris. The medians provide protection at the road edge and at the

center; local lanes limit speed variation and congestion at intersections; integration of the

roadway with other modes of travel as well as pedestrian amenities limits the space consumed

REVIVING URBANISM

25

solely for automobile traffic; and the medians protect the mobility of the center roadway and the

stationary pedestrian zone.

Each boulevard has been measured according to the characteristics identified by Jane

Jacobs as essential to a vibrant community. First, each area has been analyzed prior to the

construction of the urban freeway. This establishes the potential level of urbanism for the area of

consideration. Following the construction of the urban freeway, the change in population, use,

structure and path has been analyzed. This shows the impact of the urban freeway on the area of

consideration. Then, when freeway removal becomes a viable alternative, the measurements

begin to shift again. As these replacement projects were not completed until the first decade of

the Twenty-first Century, limited data has been collected on the impact of the replacement.

However, population and housing data provide considerable insight into the revival of these

areas. The zones of analysis are comprised of the census tracts that fall within a quarter-mile of

the roadways. The Census Tracts are then compared to the municipality to determine how well

the area of impact attracts the conditions of vibrancy.

Octavia Boulevard, Hayes Valley,

San Francisco, CA

In 1951 the City of San Francisco developed a plan that imposed a grid of freeways across

the entire peninsula, dominating the landscape while facilitating the rapid movement of traffic.

As residents saw the impact of urban freeways, the severing of communities that inevitably

resulted from the imposition of these walls, the freeway revolt began. By the time the first

section of the Central Freeway opened in 1959, San Franciscans had petitioned their government

to scale back the plan, canceling construction of many of the remaining urban freeways.

REVIVING URBANISM

26

However, for several communities, the damage had been done. For more than forty years the

Central Freeway penetrated the heart of Hayes Valley, until the Loma Prieta earthquake caused

the destruction necessary for creation.

Just after five o’clock on a Tuesday night in October, 1989, the earth beneath San

Francisco convulsed. The Loma Prieta earthquake caused the collapse of several elevated

freeways in San Francisco and Oakland, including the Central Freeway. In 1992, the California

Department of Transportation demolished the section of the Central Freeway north of Fell Street

after reconstruction proved cost prohibitive and unnecessary. Conversely, the section just south

of this, between Market Street and Fell Street, became a point of contention between the City of

San Francisco and the State of California. While both sides sought to demolish the damaged

elevated structure, the state believed a surface-level freeway would be both cost effective and

necessary for the efficient movement of traffic.

The city disagreed, suggesting traffic demands could be met by the construction of a

boulevard integrated with the existing street network. When demolition of the remaining section

of the elevated freeway failed to produce the predicted traffic nightmare supporters of the

surface-level freeway lost a key argument. However, the battle between freeway advocates and

boulevard supporters continued for the rest of the decade in the form of ballot measures. Finally,

in 2002 Octavia Boulevard replaced the quarter of a mile stretch of freeway between Market

Street and Fell Street, reconnecting the urban grid and reviving the surrounding community.

Where the Central Freeway once stood, a boulevard offers commercial development, residential

space and office space along a throughway that terminates in a park, connects two major

thoroughfares and facilitates multiple modes of travel.

REVIVING URBANISM

27

Boulevard Design

At 133 feet of total right-of-way, Octavia Boulevard falls at the lower end of acceptable

boulevard width. The central roadway provides two 11-foot wide lanes of travel for each side of

the roadway and a central median to serve as a pedestrian refuge. At intersections, motorists can

cross from the central roadway to the local lanes, from the local lanes to the central roadway, or

turn from the cross street to either the central roadway or the local lanes. This multiplicity of

options forces drivers to be more cognizant of their surroundings when entering the intersection.

However, the boulevard restricts left turns from the central roadway, removing one variable from

the intersection while forcing drivers to maintain constancy of speed and trajectory through this

urban environment.

The central roadway occupies little more than forty percent of the total right-of-way,

returning nearly 80 feet of right-of-way to pedestrian, bicycle, and ecological use. By

reintegrating land uses for commerce and transportation Octavia Boulevard incentivizes density,

helping to revive the area. Each pedestrian

area includes an 18.5-foot local roadway

that provides one lane of travel to be shared

with bicyclists and one row of parallel

parking, protecting pedestrians from

automobile traffic. The entrance to the

pedestrian zone uses an alternative form of

pavement which is slightly raised, alerting

the driver that she is entering an area where

the automobile is not dominant. Buildings Figure 1: Octavia Boulevard, San Francisco, CA. Image provided by

ESRI ArcGIS. Measurements are approximate.

REVIVING URBANISM

28

on the southbound side face the roadway,

attracting drivers and pedestrians. On the

northbound side of the boulevard, fences line

the sidewalk separating the pedestrian zone

from private parking lots and side-yards. This

limits the commercially productive use of the

boulevard to only one side.

To further protect and separate the pedestrian realm from the automobile realm, medians

between the local and through lanes provide clear definition. Down the center and along both

sides of the central roadway, 10-foot medians lined with trees and walking paths provide

continuous divisions between the different roadway users. Trees bracket the central roadway,

while the paths extend the pedestrian realm to the medians. The trees provide a continuous

canopy to offer shade and comfort for the pedestrian along the medians. Conversely, while the

center median provides a pedestrian path, the broken canopy created by the clustered tree pattern

reminds pedestrians that the central median is a refuge from the automobile, not an extension of

the pedestrian realm.

At the end of The Boulevard Book,

Alan Jacobs, the former Planning Director for

the City of San Francisco, and his co-authors

present their design for Octavia Boulevard.

Clearly, the boulevard designed by Allan

Jacobs should adhere to the guidelines

Figure 3: Octavia Boulevard Pedestrian Realm, Local Lane

Entrance, San Francisco, CA. Image provided by Google Earth.

Figure 2: Octavia Boulevard Pedestrian Realm, Southbound, San

Francisco, CA. Image provided by Google Earth.

REVIVING URBANISM

29

prescribed by Allan Jacobs. However, the

implementation of his plan did not include

every design amenity provided in The

Boulevard Book. First, the central roadway

fails to provide a left turn lane. While this

helps to maintain the flow of traffic for the

central roadway, it limits the variety of

travel at intersections. Additionally, this maintenance of traffic flow has the potential to increase

speed, as drivers are less concerned with other drivers entering, exiting and crossing their lanes of

travel. Also, public transportation is not offered along Octavia Boulevard. While several routes

cross the boulevard and many run parallel on neighboring streets, no transit line runs from Market

Street to the Hayes Green. The guideline only states where transit access should be located, along

the central roadway side of the medians, and not whether public transit should be provided.

However, it can be assumed that more modal options would be advisable under this guideline.

Finally, although front doors and building facades line the southbound side of the boulevard,

chain-link fences on the northbound side provide an inhospitable pedestrian environment. With

these three deviations from the guidelines, Octavia Boulevard meets fourteen of the seventeen

guidelines.

Impact Zone

The six Census Tracts that lie within a quarter-mile of Octavia Boulevard comprise the

impact zone of this freeway removal project. Although portions of several neighborhoods lie

within these Census Tracts, the neighborhood closest to the epicenter is Hayes Valley. Since the

1950 US Census, this cluster of Tracts has seen only one major division: in 2010 Census Tract

Figure 4: Octavia Boulevard Pedestrian Realm, Northbound, San

Francisco, CA. Image provided by Google Earth.

REVIVING URBANISM

30

168 was split. Because the geographic data has remained constant, the demographic data can be

analyzed with fewer complications. While significant variation exists within and between each

Census Tract over the course of the research period, this analysis seeks only to study the area as

a whole. Therefore, only the aggregate measures for the Hayes Valley impact zone have been

compared to the measures for the City of San Francisco.

REVIVING URBANISM

31

Figure 5: Hayes Valley Impact Zone. Map created using ESRI ArcGIS 10.

REVIVING URBANISM

32

Rose Kennedy Greenway, North End,

Boston, MA

When the first section of the Central Artery opened in 1954 it culminated more than forty

years of planning and urban design seeking to connect the North End of Boston with the southern

end of the city. From the beginning, the Central Artery, soon known as “the other Green

Monster,” proved inadequate for the traffic demands of the City of Boston. This elevated

freeway cut from the Charles River through Haymarket Square to wharfs on the eastern shore,

severing the North End and walling off the waterfront. Seeing this detriment, city and state

traffic engineers decided to bury the final section of the freeway as an urban tunnel project. This

option not only protected the southern end of the downtown waterfront, but it occupied less

space and allowed existing structures to remain.

As the roadway aged, and traffic congestion worsened, state and local officials became

increasingly interested in alternative approaches to improve the Central Artery. As early as 1982,

plans to bury the elevated portions of the Central Artery had been drafted. While structural

integrity no doubt played a role in the timing of the demolition and replacement, traffic mitigation

and urban development served as motivating factors. In design as well as timing, the plan for

“The Big Dig” aligns closely with the Total Approach advocated by the Department of

Transportation during the late 1960s and 1970s. This design ethic retains mobility as a major

concern for freeway design, but tries to integrate the massive structures into the urban

environment by shrinking their footprints and recognizing the third dimension of right-of-way

design, depth. After decades of congestion and agitation, the City of Boston and the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts agreed to bury the elevated portion to match the southern

REVIVING URBANISM

33

section. This project, dubbed “The Big Dig” quickly became the most ambitious and expensive

public works project in the history of the country.

Boulevard Design

While the freeway may not have been removed, the completion of the Big Dig in 2008

created an environment conducive to the development of a multi-way boulevard. At the center of

the right-of-way, above the buried freeway, the Rose Kennedy Greenway winds through the

downtown like a green ribbon offering motorists and pedestrians a sense of nature in the midst of

the urban fabric. This section of the boulevard stretches over 380 feet from building line to

building line. Although the total width of the right-of-way falls well outside the maximum width

suggested for a boulevard, the greenway occupies 205 feet of the right-of-way. Because it offers

space for recreation and relaxation, but no space for commercial activities, in many ways, the

greenway serves as an oversized center median. However, treating the greenway as a median

reduces the pedestrian realm

to only slightly more than a

quarter of the right-of-way.

Alternatively, the greenway

can be seen as a destination

rather than a pedestrian

refuge, expanding the

pedestrian zone to over 80%

of the right-of-way.

38275

205

ft

25

Figure 6: Rose Kennedy Greenway, Boston, MA. Image provided by ESRI ArcGIS.

Measurements are approximate.

REVIVING URBANISM

34

The roadway that encloses the greenway adheres closely to the guidelines presented in The

Boulevard Book. Each side of the roadway provides two eleven-foot-wide lanes of travel. As on

Octavia Boulevard, no left turn lanes are provided; unlike Octavia Boulevard, left turns are

permitted. The width of the greenway requires an additional design feature that increases

variability at intersections. Each side of the roadway has been equipped with traffic signals,

creating two separate intersections per cross street. The inter-greenway sections of the cross

streets include one through lane and one left-turn lane for each direction. Slightly removed from

the intersection, breaks in the side medians allow access to the local lane of travel. This

intersection design provides drivers with multiple options, creating a complex intersection that

slows traffic and improves pedestrian

access.

The pedestrian realm of the

boulevard adheres less closely to the

guidelines, but provides a safe and effective

environment for pedestrians and local

traffic. Buildings that once faced an

elevated freeway now face the open expanse of the greenway and the narrow surface roads that

surround it. Excluding the greenway from the total width of the right-of-way, the pedestrian realm

occupies as much as 60% of the remaining width. The pedestrian realm is marked by an entirely

different paving surface than the roadway, offering unavoidable signals to the driver about the

diminished role of the automobile in this area. Street balusters and a lane of parallel parking

further separate the pedestrian from the single lane of the local roadway. Contrary to the

guidelines, parallel parking is permitted along both sides of the local lane. Additionally, the total

Figure 7: Rose Kennedy Greenway Pedestrian Realm, Boston, MA.

Image provided by Google Earth.

REVIVING URBANISM

35

width of the parking lanes and the local

travel lane exceeds the maximum suggested

width for the automobile allowance within

the pedestrian zone.

While the guidelines suggest

medians should provide clear definition

between the center roadway and the

pedestrian realm, the medians along the Rose Kennedy Greenway serve to blend the two areas

together. On the pedestrian side of the median, fifteen-foot planting strips denote the outer

boundary of the pedestrian realm. Between the planting strips, the red brick paving stones of the

pedestrian realm meet the center roadway, giving pedestrians access to another row of parallel

parking in the far right lane of the center roadway. This extension of the median into the center

roadway effectively closes the far right lane for through traffic. The narrow path alongside the

parked cars has become a bicycle lane. While similar to the intent of the guidelines, this traffic

pattern may become dangerous for bicyclists as drivers enter and exit the parking lane.

Along the greenway side of the roadways, street trees and pavement variations define the

separation between the roadway and greenway. The trees have been spaced 25 feet apart, offering

a continuous canopy upon maturity. This canopy should provide an additional incentive for

pedestrians to use the greenway regularly. The wide expanse of the greenway allows bicyclists

and other non-automobile traffic to avoid the roadway if safety concerns make this necessary. As

more than 80% of the right-of-way has been reserved for non-automobile use, the possibilities for

local travel are numerous. Non-local travelers seeking to use mass transit can access the

Figure 8: Rose Kennedy Greenway Pedestrian Realm, Boston, MA.

Image provided by Google Earth.

REVIVING URBANISM

36

Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority

Haymarket Station at the western edge of

the greenway or at the Aquarium Station, a

quarter of a mile to the east. The mass

transit system in Boston provides

alternative transportation throughout the

area either with subways or with trolley

buses, but no transit service on the main roadway along the Rose Kennedy Greenway.

Although this freeway removal design deviates considerably from the central components

of the design proposed in The Boulevard Book, it follows many of the guidelines. First, although

the freeway has been buried as opposed to full removal, its location allows the right-of-way to be

measured as if it had been removed. While entrance and exit ramps interrupt the greenway and

separate Haymarket Square and North End Park from the Waterfront, the greenway itself

reconnects the North End with the rest of downtown. Second, although the right-of-way falls

outside the proposed maximum width for a multi-use boulevard, the greenway absorbs the vast

majority of this excess.

The area takes on multiple identities: a multi-modal boulevard, an urban park system, a

pair of local access lanes for the freeway below. However, it fails on several counts. Like Octavia

Boulevard, it provides no turning lanes or public transit service along the central roadway.

Additionally, the excessive width of the local lanes and the provision of two lanes of parking in

the pedestrian zone surpass the maximum suggested width. Finally, the lack of signage or

Figure 9: Rose Kennedy Greenway, Boston, MA. Image provided by

Google Earth.

REVIVING URBANISM

37

pavement markings offers bicyclists no safe haven within the roadway. Due to these failings, the

Rose Kennedy Greenway earns only twelve out of seventeen points.

Impact Zone

Eight Census Tracts within a quarter of a mile of the North End portion of the Rose

Kennedy Greenway comprise the impact zone of the is freeway removal project. Unlike San

Francisco, however, this area has seen considerable variation in the delineation of Census Tracts

over the study period. To maintain a level of consistency within the total area of consideration,

the 1970 US Census map was used as a base, as this map included the smallest number of

Census Tracts covering the largest land mass. Any Census Tract that falls within the boundaries

of this base map has been included in the analysis. Due to this variation of tract boundary, only

aggregate data for the impact zone has been analyzed and compared to the City of Boston at

large.

REVIVING URBANISM

38

Figure 10: North End Impact Zone. Map created using ESRI ArcGIS 10.

REVIVING URBANISM

39

McKinley Avenue, Haymarket,

Milwaukee, WI

Built in the 1960s at the height of the Freeway Era, the Park East Freeway was intended to

be part of a ring of freeways surrounding the core of downtown Milwaukee, Wisconsin. As in

San Francisco a decade prior, citizens of Milwaukee rose up in protest of the imposition of these

behemoths on the urban landscape. Although the freeway revolt prevented a loop of freeways

from marring the urban form, several spurs and connections were constructed. The Park East

Freeway, planned as a connection from the North-South Freeway to the lakefront, halted

construction just over the Milwaukee River with less than a mile built. This spur provided

limited access to the downtown and remained underused for the entirety of its lifespan.

The freeway stood for three decades until an idealistic mayor led the charge to tear it

down. As a resident of Milwaukee in the 1960s John Norquist participated in the protests that

halted completion of the Park East Freeway. In 1998, Mayor Norquist began a campaign for the

complete removal of the Park East Freeway, replaced by an urban boulevard. A member of the

board of the Congress for the New Urbanism, Norquist promoted the boulevard as a mixed-use,

multi-modal urban throughway designed to revive the urban form and promote economic

redevelopment. After a four year legal and political battle, demolition of the Park East Freeway

began. With demolition completed in April 2003, the street grid was revived and the area became

available for private and public investment. Where the Park East Freeway once stood, McKinley

Avenue now serves as the southern boundary of Haymarket, a commercial and industrial area of

redevelopment on the western banks of the Milwaukee River. Along this section of urban

freeway, the removal process has unearthed an urban park that reconnects the city to its

REVIVING URBANISM

40

riverfront, and has begun the construction of an urban boulevard complete with residential,

commercial and office space.

Boulevard Design

The design of this roadway follows the standard design model promoted by the ITE

wherein mobility and accessibility stand in direct opposition. This design model retains a focus

on the automobile as the primary user of the roadway. Two lanes for travel in either direction and

an alternating left-turn lane allow drivers easy access to the area while maintaining mobility.

Intersections offer no limitations for travelers, allowing right and left turns onto and off of cross

streets. Although the outer lanes surpass the maximum width proposed by the guidelines, the

automobile realm of McKinley Avenue meets four out of five guidelines, indicating a well-

designed central roadway. However, while this roadway provides adequate facilities for

automobile travel, it fails to provide any accommodations for a substantial pedestrian realm or

123 ft 92 ft

35 ft

Figure 11: McKinley Avenue, Milwaukee, WI. Image provided by ESRI ArcGIS. Measurements are approximate.

REVIVING URBANISM

41

for useful and attractive medians.

Assigning the outer edge of the

sidewalk as the edge of the right-of-way,

this boulevard measures a mere 123 feet

across, below the minimum standard.

Within this narrow right-of-way, the

pedestrian realm occupies a total of 31 feet, or just over 25%. The pedestrian area offers no

provision for local traffic, merging local and through traffic on the center roadway. With no

access roads, the pedestrian realm is reduced to a narrow six-foot sidewalk protected by a six-

foot median on the westbound side and a nine-foot median on the eastbound side. Public transit

is not provided along McKinley Avenue. Lanes have not been marked for bicyclists; signs do not

inform drivers of the presence of bicyclists. Though bicyclists are allowed by right to use the

roadway, no provisions have been made to separate bicyclists from pedestrians or from

automobile traffic. The diminished size, lack of local access lanes, and poor provision for

alternative modes of travel create an atmosphere hostile to the pedestrian.

The building frontage is

inconsistent and often fits a more suburban

environment than an urban boulevard.

Between 6th

Street and 4th

Street, four

parcels comprise the northern side of the

roadway. On the corner of 6th

Street, a

blank brick wall faces McKinley Avenue.

Figure 13: McKinley Avenue Pedestrian Realm, Westbound Facing

East, Milwaukee, WI. Image provided by Google Earth.

Figure 12: McKinley Avenue Pedestrian Realm, Westbound Facing

West, Milwaukee, WI. Image provided by Google Earth.

REVIVING URBANISM

42

While this building is positioned at the

edge of the parcel line providing definition

for the pedestrian realm, the two structures

to the east are not. Separating these

buildings from the roadway are large

parking lots and a suburban-style front

lawn. On the corner of 4th

Street, a historic

warehouse has been converted into multi-use space with windows and doors that face the

roadway, providing the transparency necessary for a high quality pedestrian realm. On the

southern side of McKinley Avenue, a vacant lot awaits development. Along this central portion

of McKinley Avenue, only one eighth of the building frontage promotes an active pedestrian

environment.

While McKinley Avenue provides no local lane, parallel parking is provided along the

main corridor. But with no markings to separate it, the parking lane blends into the outside lane.

This causes confusion not only for drivers, but also for motorists seeking to park their vehicles

who may not know where to position themselves relative to the meter or to the curb. As traffic

increases during peak driving hours,

motorists have adopted the parking lane as

a third, unmarked lane of travel. When this

lane is in use for parking, as designed, the

pedestrian realm enjoys an additional layer

of protection from the central roadway.

Figure 14: McKinley Avenue Pedestrian Realm, Eastbound Facing

East, Milwaukee, WI. Image provided by Google Earth.

Figure 15: McKinley Avenue, Milwaukee, WI. Image provided by

Google Earth.

REVIVING URBANISM

43

However, as parking is only permitted on the westbound side of the roadway, pedestrians

traveling on the eastbound side are not afforded this additional protection.

A landscaped central median provides a refuge point for pedestrians. The center median,

landscaped with trees, shrubs and flowers, provides clear definition between the two sides of the

roadway. Up to 17-feet wide, this median could provide pedestrian use in portions, but no

amenities are offered. Along the edges of the roadway, variation in paving surfaces delineates the

median from the walkway. The medians are lined with trees and municipal furniture, such as

light posts and street signs, to separate the pedestrian from the automobile. Although the

pedestrian realm includes a line of trees, these trees are spaced at the absolute maximum

suggested distance. Additionally, every

third tree has been replaced by a light post

alternating between pedestrian-scale posts

and automobile-scale posts. When these

trees are in full bloom, the canopy will be

incomplete and will fail to provide

appropriate protection from the elements.

The central limitation of this freeway removal project, the width, has complicated the

replacement process and led to a less than adequate urban boulevard. While the central roadway

carries enough capacity to replace the underused Park East Freeway, it occupies more than half

of the right-of-way. The automobile remains the central component of this roadway, the

pedestrian remains an afterthought. By not assigning greater weight to the needs of the

pedestrian or to other modes of transportation, this roadway fails to meet the majority of the

Figure 16: McKinley Avenue Pedestrian Realm, Eastbound Facing

West, Milwaukee, WI. Image provided by Google Earth.

REVIVING URBANISM

44

design guidelines for an urban boulevard. Having met all but one guideline for the automobile

zone, McKinley Avenue fails to meet any guideline for the pedestrian zone and only one

guideline for the medians, giving it a final score of five out of seventeen.

The area under consideration centers on the only portion of this roadway named

McKinley Avenue. Although it only constitutes one third of the total Park East Freeway removal

project, it serves as the only internal urban portion of the removal, as the other sections

reconnected downtown with the Milwaukee Riverfront. Although this impact zone includes

portions of several neighborhoods, McKinley Avenue serves as the southern boundary for the

Haymarket neighborhood.

Impact Zone

Similar to the North End of Boston, the Census Tracts that fall within a quarter of a mile

radius of this roadway have been realigned several times over the last half century. The 2010 US

Census offers the largest area with the fewest Census Tracts, serving as the base map for the

other Census Tract maps. All Census Tracts from previous years that fall within this boundary

have been included in the analysis as part of the Haymarket neighborhood. This zone stretches to

Interstate 94 at its southern edge, causing some inconsistency in the land mass between 1960 and

1970. However, this inconsistency should not substantially affect the results of this survey.

REVIVING URBANISM

45

Figure 17: Haymarket Impact Zone. Map created using ESRI ArcGIS 10.

REVIVING URBANISM

46

Impact Analysis1

Population Density

The first measure of a vibrant community concerns the density and diversity of the

resident population. Though all three areas began the study period with population densities well

above their municipal averages, each area experienced varying levels of impact from the

construction, removal and replacement of their urban freeways. In 1950, when Hayes Valley had

its highest density, and again in 1970, when it had its lowest density, the area housed 2.67 times

as many people per acre as the city average. Even as density in Hayes Valley dropped nearly

15% during the 1950s, an

additional 14% in the next decade,

and remained static in the

following decade, San Francisco

density fell 17.5% in the first

decade, 11.8% in the next, and

27.8% in the third. By 1980, the

density of San Francisco was

barely half what it was in 1950

while Octavia Boulevard had lost

only one quarter of its density.

1 All Census data has been provided by The College of William and Mary and the Minnesota Population Center

through the National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 2.0. Minneapolis, MN: University of

Minnesota 2011. http://www.nhgis.org.

Figure 18: Population Density per Acre, Hayes Valley, San Francisco, CA.

REVIVING URBANISM

47

By contrast to this steady,

though relatively modest decline,

the North End of Boston and the

Haymarket in Milwaukee

experienced precipitous drops in

population density. In 1950, the

North End exhibited a population

density 3.60 times the average

density in Boston. By 1960, with

the Central Artery fully in place, the population density had dropped by nearly 60%. As the city

average density fell over the course of the next several decades, the density of this area rose

modestly until 1980 when the density of the North End was 2.38 times the density of Boston.

However, the North End of 1980 enjoyed little more than half the density as it had in 1950. In

the Haymarket, after losing more than two thirds of the area density over this period, population

density reached a nadir in 1980 of one quarter of its 1950 level. Although Milwaukee began with

a lower average population density than the other municipalities, and the Haymarket began the

study period with half the density of the other two study areas, the decline is even more

pronounced.

During the period of removal and replacement, the three study areas each saw moderate

increases in population density at similar rates of return. However, no impact zone has returned

to the level it saw in 1950. Beginning in 1980 the density of Hayes Valley began to increase

more rapidly than the density of the city. In two decades, Hayes Valley population density

increased by 15%, the majority of which occurred during the removal process in the 1990s.

Figure 19: Population Density per Acre, North End, Boston, MA.

REVIVING URBANISM

48

Similarly, San Francisco saw a

nearly 20% increase in density

between 1980 and 2000. However,

a rapid decline in the city density

by 2010 left Hayes Valley with a

density 4.65 times the city average.

By 2000, just before the

completion of the Greenway, the

Haymarket area enjoyed a density

more than twice that of the city as a whole. After the opening of the Rose Kennedy Greenway,

the density of the North End increased by nearly a quarter over the previous measurement and

approached three times the average density for the city. Similarly, in 2010 the Haymarket was

more than three times as densely populated as the city of Milwaukee, a 15% rate of increase from

1980.

Population Diversity

Racial Diversity

Hayes Valley has

consistently enjoyed a more

positive racial diversity index than

the city as a whole. Even as the

diversity of the city has increased,

the diversity of Hayes Valley has

Figure 20: Population Density per Acre, Haymarket, Milwaukee, WI.

Figure 21: Diversity Index - Race, Hayes Valley, San Francisco, CA.

REVIVING URBANISM

49

increased. However, this diversity growth shows an inverse relationship with the density growth

of the area during the decades that the Central Freeway was in use. This resulted from the white

population leaving the area and minority populations moving into the area. From 1950 to 1990,

the white population of Hayes Valley dropped from 35,842 to 12,110. During this same period,

the minority population of Hayes Valley grew from 3,807 to 19,403. By 2010, the white

population and the total minority population had achieved near parity with 16,240 and 17,807,

respectively.

The diversity within the minority population provides an additional point of analysis.

After reaching a maximum population of 10,510 in 1980, the black population has steadily

decreased to 4,342 in 2010. Hayes Valley follows a pattern similar to the City of San Francisco

where the black population has steadily decreased since 1970. The Asian and Pacific Islander

population of the city has increased dramatically since the Census began counting this population

in 1970. However, Hayes Valley has seen only limited growth in this population.

In contrast to the diversity of

Hayes Valley, the North End in Boston

shows a consistent pattern of

diminished racial inclusion. In 1950,

the City of Boston had a racial

diversity index of .92, signifying a

very homogeneous population.

However, the North End showed a

racial diversity index of .99, a nearly

Figure 22: Diversity Index - Race, North End, Boston, MA.

REVIVING URBANISM

50

absolute racial homogeneity. As the racial diversity of Boston improved, the diversity index of the

North End improved as well, but not nearly as quickly. It was not until 2000 that the North End

achieved the diversity score that Boston achieved in 1970. Although racial diversity increased in

the North End more rapidly between 2000 and 2010 than it had in any decade prior, the area still

scores nearly twice as high on the index as the city average. Over the course of the study period, it

is clear that while the white population has consistently been over represented in the North End,

the black population has consistently been under represented.

The diversity of the Haymarket area has remained remarkably consistent over the six

decades of the study period. In 1950, the Haymarket area enjoyed a racial diversity index of .59,

while Milwaukee had an index of .95. Over the decades, the Haymarket index has gradually

decreased to .42 in 2010. However, the stability in this index compared to the gradual

improvement of the city index hides some of the volatility the Haymarket population has seen

over the study period. As population density declined, the minority percentage of the population

increased, suggesting the population decline was more pronounced in the white population than

in the minority population. As the

minority population has increased as a

percentage of the total population of

Milwaukee, it has decreased as a

percentage of the total population of

the Haymarket area to the point where

the local and the city racial diversity

indices are nearly equal.

Figure 23: Diversity Index - Race, Haymarket, Milwaukee, WI.

REVIVING URBANISM

51

Age Diversity

Age diversity in all three areas has

followed a similar pattern over the course of the

study period. In 1950 and 1960, age diversity

within the areas of consideration matched the age

diversity of their respective cities. Over the next

several decades, the impact zone began to deviate

slightly from the municipal score. This elevation

denotes a larger than average population of early

working age adults in all three impact zones. This

population grew steadily in relation to the other

generational cohort groups for all three areas. In

Hayes Valley and in the North End, this

population has a 10% greater share of the total

population than in the respective municipalities.

For both of these areas, this increased share has

come at the expense of a diminished school age

population. Conversely, the Haymarket had a

15% increase in population share for the early

working age population. However, this increase

has come at the expense of the two older

generational cohort groups.

Figure 26: Diversity Index - Age, Hayes Valley,

San Francisco, CA.

Figure 26: Diversity Index - Age, North End,

Boston, MA.

Figure 26: Diversity Index - Age, Haymarket,

Milwaukee, WI.

REVIVING URBANISM

52

Figure 29: Generational Frequency, Haymarket, Milwaukee, WI.

Figure 28: Generational Frequency, North End, Boston, MA.

Figure 27: Generational Frequency, Hayes Valley, San Francisco, CA.

REVIVING URBANISM

53

Employment

Over the course of the study period, the Hayes Valley labor participation rate has trended

alongside the labor participation rate for the City of San Francisco, while the unemployment rate

has been much higher than the city average. Following construction of the Central Freeway, the

unemployment rate in Hayes Valley was double the San Francisco rate. By 1960, the

unemployment rate had dropped by almost 50%, but was still well above the city unemployment

rate. By 1990, unemployment in Hayes Valley had fallen more in line with the San Francisco

average, but remained elevated.

Conversely, the North End has seen an elevated labor participation rate and tremendous

fluctuation in the unemployment rate. Prior to the construction of the Central Artery, the

unemployment rate for the North End was nearly double that of the city. As demolition of the

Central Artery loomed over the North End, the unemployment rate had fallen three percentage

points below the Boston rate. By 2000, North End unemployment and Boston unemployment

were nearly equal.

Figure 31: Labor Participation, Hayes Valley,

San Francisco, CA.

Figure 31: Unemployment, Hayes Valley,

San Francisco, CA.

REVIVING URBANISM

54

In contrast to the labor and unemployment trends of Hayes Valley and the North End, the

Haymarket saw a substantial decline in labor participation that did not follow the Milwaukee

trend line. By 1970 the labor participation rate for the Haymarket area had fallen by nearly one

quarter. In 2000, labor participation in Haymarket was fourteen percentage points lower than the

Milwaukee average. Additionally, the unemployment rate for Haymarket has consistently been

well above the Milwaukee unemployment rate. When labor participation matched the city

average, unemployment in Haymarket was three times as high as the city rate. In 1970, when the

labor participation rate fell below 50%, unemployment in Haymarket dropped to slightly more

than the city rate. In the following decade, unemployment spiked to 13.5% in the Haymarket

area, while the city rate stayed below 6%. Since then, the unemployment rate has fallen for the

Haymarket area as the rate has risen for Milwaukee.

The improving employment situation for all three study areas follows a national shift in

employment type over the second half of the study period. In 1960, professionals, executives and

management comprised approximately 20% of all employed individuals in San Francisco,

Boston, and Milwaukee; in the local areas this group comprised as little as 10%. As this

employment type increased as a share of the employed population in all three cities, it increased

Figure 33: Labor Participation, North End,

Boston, MA.

Figure 33: Unemployment, North End, Boston,

MA.

REVIVING URBANISM

55

even more rapidly in the study areas. By 2000, this employment group included 47% of all

employed individuals in San Francisco and in Hayes Valley; 43% in Boston and 66% in the

North End; and 33.5% in Milwaukee and 53% in Haymarket. In direct contrast to this trend has

been the decline of construction and labor employment throughout all three municipalities and

the three study areas. During the first two decades of this study, construction and labor

employment held an elevated share of the employed population in all three study areas. In 1970,

all three areas saw a decline in this employment type that continued through the remainder of the

study period. While this trend could also be seen in the municipalities, it is more pronounced in

the impact zones. By 2000, each study area claimed a diminished share of employed individuals

in the construction and labor trades.

Housing Density

A vibrant community with a dense population requires an adequate number of housing

units in which the local population can reside. To provide adequate support for local businesses,

housing density must be at least ten units per acre. As the areas have changed over the six

decades of this analysis, the level of housing density has followed a pattern similar to that of the

Figure 35: Labor Participation, Haymarket,

Milwaukee, WI.

Figure 35: Unemployment, Haymarket,

Milwaukee, WI.

REVIVING URBANISM

56

Figure 38: Employment Type, Hayes Valley, San Francisco, CA.

Figure 38: Employment Type, North End, Boston, MA.

Figure 38: Employment Type, Haymarket, Milwaukee, WI.

REVIVING URBANISM

57

local population density, though

lagging by a decade. Where

population density has remained

many times higher than the city

average, the housing unit density

has remained similarly elevated. In

1950, Hayes Valley offered three

times as many housing units per

acre than the city as a whole. As

the population density receded,

housing density fell; as population density grew, housing density increased.

Although housing in the North End saw only a dramatic decline after the construction of

the Central Artery, it was not as precipitous as the decline in population. In 1950, the North End

held more than five times as many units per acre than the city average. This density of housing

units allowed the large population

of the North End to enjoy less

crowding per unit than the city

average by more than one person

per home. Following the

construction of the Central Artery,

the number of housing units

declined steadily to a low of 14.25

Figure 39: Housing Units per Acre, Hayes Valley, San

Francisco, CA.

Figure 40: Housing Units per Acre, North End, Boston, MA.

REVIVING URBANISM

58

units per acre, a decline in density

of more than 40%. As the

population slowly returned,

housing density increased in the

North End. After the removal of

the Central Artery and the opening

of the Rose Kennedy Greenway,

both the population density and the

housing density jumped by 23%

and 25% respectively.

Unlike the North End, housing density in Haymarket saw a more rapid decline than

population density over the same period. Prior to the construction of the Park East Freeway, the

Haymarket area supported a housing unit density more than four times that of the City of

Milwaukee. By 1970, housing density in Haymarket fell by 50%. Over the life of the Park East

Freeway, housing density gradually increased to more than twice the city average. After the

removal of the freeway housing density spiked by more than 25%, matching a 21% increase in

population density in the same period. However, even before construction of the Park East

Freeway began, housing density did not meet the requisite 10 units per acre to support local

businesses. To reach this threshold, housing density will have to double.

Structural Age

A variety in the age of housing units may suggest an amount of permanence within the

community. As old structures decay, some are rehabilitated while others are removed in favor of

Figure 41: Housing Units per Acre, Haymarket, Milwaukee, WI.

REVIVING URBANISM

59

new construction. The City

of San Francisco shows a

balance between housing

unit retention and new

construction. The attrition

of housing units built

before 1940 allows the city

to build twenty- to thirty-

thousand new housing units

each decade. While Hayes

Valley follows a similar

pattern, two significant

differences must be addressed. First, throughout the study period, the study area has exhibited a

greater share of housing stock built before 1940. The age of this stock allows the area to facilitate

a greater variety of uses and users. Second, as a result of the construction of the Central Freeway

Hayes Valley lost nearly 2,000 homes between 1960 and 1970, a 10% reduction in the

availability of housing. As new homes have been built in the area, the variety of housing options

have increased.

After the construction of the Central Artery, the North End showed an elevated rate of

homes built prior to 1940. This is unsurprising as few homes would have been built during the

planning and construction phases of the Central Artery. However, the housing demolition

continued through the 1960s as more than two thousand homes built before 1940 were

demolished, replaced by just over fifteen hundred new homes. The City of Boston also saw a

Figure 42: Housing Units by Year Built, Hayes Valley, San Francisco, CA.

REVIVING URBANISM

60

depletion of the housing

stock over the 1960s.

However, by 1980, both the

city and the North End had

experienced a housing

boom, adding seventeen

hundred new homes in the

North End and more than

twenty-seven thousand

across the city. In 2000, the

City of Boston enjoyed a

greater diversity of housing

ages while the North End offered a greater concentration of homes built between 1960 and 1979.

The most apparent cause for the deviation is the pause in homebuilding during the planning and

construction of the Central Artery.

Housing in the City of Milwaukee follows an expected pattern of an increasing supply of

housing units decade over decade with the older stock removed and replaced with new housing

stock. This pattern ends in 2000 with less than a quarter of all housing stock over sixty years of

age, slightly more than one fifth built in the 1950s during the postwar boom, with construction

steadily decreasing over the subsequent decades. Haymarket does not follow this pattern. In

1960, more than 88% of all housing units in the Haymarket area were built before 1940. By the

following decade, the housing stock in Haymarket had been cut in half; three quarters of all

housing stock built before 1940 was demolished during the 1960s. The 1960s also saw a spike in

Figure 43: Housing Units by Year Built, North End, Boston, MA.

REVIVING URBANISM

61

housing construction in the

Haymarket area, but much

of this housing stock was

removed in subsequent

decades. By the end of the

century, the total housing

stock of the Haymarket

area was less than 60% of

the total in 1950. However,

the age distribution of this

diminished housing supply

more closely aligned with

the age distribution for the housing supply in the City of Milwaukee than it had at any point

prior.

Occupancy

Homeownership in all three impact zones has consistently fallen short of the respective

citywide averages. In the City of San Francisco, the homeownership rate has remained fairly

constant since the 1950s; around one third of all homes are owner occupied. In Hayes Valley,

homeownership only achieved 15% in 2010. Prior to this, the rate of homeownership has steadily

increased from a low of 6.1% in 1970. The rate of homeownership dropped by more than a third

from the 1950 rate of 9.6%, still far below the municipal average. Not surprisingly, the

fluctuation of the homeownership rate has followed the rise and fall of the vacancy rate in the

area. In 1980, the vacancy rate for Hayes Valley reached 11.1%, double the rate for the City of

Figure 44: Housing Units by Year Built, Haymarket, Milwaukee, WI.

REVIVING URBANISM

62

San Francisco. However, by 2000 the vacancy rate for the local area had dropped well below the

city average and remained there for the following US Census. While the rate of homeownership

has remained stable for the City of San Francisco over the study period, Hayes Valley has seen

stability only in the rate of renter occupied housing. Yet due to the low rate of homeownership in

the area, the renter occupied share for Hayes Valley has consistently been one third higher than

the city average.

Similar to Hayes Valley, the North End has shown a consistently weak homeownership

rate over the study period. Over the seven decades of this study, homeownership in Boston grew

at a measured pace, adding less than one percentage point per decade. The North End,

conversely, experienced a rapid growth in homeownership during the 1980s, jumping from

11.5% to 21.2% of all housing units. This rapid increase coincides with a spike in the vacancy

rate for the area. After this surge, the North End more closely followed the city homeownership

rate, though still at a depressed rate with higher than average rates of vacancy.

Figure 45: Housing Occupancy, Hayes Valley, San Francisco, CA.

REVIVING URBANISM

63

Homeownership in the Haymarket area has never approached the city average. In 1950,

while half of all residents of Milwaukee owned their own home, only 11% of Haymarket

residents owned their own home. As the rate of homeownership increased throughout Milwaukee

to a high of 55.7% in 1980, the Haymarket area reached a low point with less than 5% of all

homes occupied by the owner. After the removal of the Park East Freeway, the homeownership

Figure 47: Housing Occupancy, North End, Boston, MA.

Figure 46: Housing Occupancy, Haymarket, Milwaukee, WI.

REVIVING URBANISM

64

rate in Haymarket more than doubled to 18.6%, a rate less than half that of the city average. In

combination with the low rate of homeownership, the Haymarket area consistently has seen

elevated rates of vacancy. In 1970, at the height of construction, the vacancy rate approached

13% for the Haymarket area. In 2010, the rate remained elevated at more than 10%, but only

moderately above the city average of 7.9%.

Development Density

The development density of Hayes Valley shows an improvement of path diversity since

1980, but does not necessarily promote pedestrianism. For the first three decades of the study

period, built form density and activity density for Hayes Valley were between 100% and 200%

greater than the built form density and activity density of the city as a whole. For the last three

available data points of the study period, the built form and activity density of the study area

were almost four times as high as the city average. This increased density suggests that the

quality of the environment attracts more travelers who use the area for a greater variety of

Figure 48: Increase of Development Density over Local Average, Hayes Valley, San Francisco, CA.

REVIVING URBANISM

65

purposes. Between 1970 and 1980, both the relative quality and relative quantity of trips made

in the area increased dramatically. However, because the network load density remained no more

than 70% of the city average, streets remained viable pathways for through and local automobile

traffic.

Similar to Hayes Valley, the North End of Boston exhibits constant levels of elevated

built form density and activity density, with depressed levels of network load density. After

losing more than half of the 1950 built form density, the North End steadily rebuilt over the

subsequent decades, never achieving the relative density of more than three times the City of

Boston in 1950. Following a similar trend, the activity density of the North End fell by more than

half between 1950 and 1960. While the relative activity density of the North End improved faster

than the relative built form density, it never achieved the same level it had prior to the

construction of the Central Artery. Unlike Hayes Valley, however, the North End showed an

elevated network load density in 1950 that fell to one third less than the city network load

Figure 49: Increase of Development Density over Local Average, North End, Boston, MA.

REVIVING URBANISM

66

density. Even as the other two measures of density increased, the network load density of the

North End never matched the city network load density.

In 1950 the Haymarket area enjoyed elevated density on all three measures, creating an

environment conducive to pedestrianism and a vibrant urban community. The built form density,

at more than six times the city average, provided Haymarket with an extremely high quality

walking environment. With more than triple the activity density, Haymarket offered residents

and visitors multiple destinations in relatively close proximity. With double the network load

density, Haymarket offered a greater incentive for alternative modes of transportation, including

walking and bicycling. By 1960 all three density measures had fallen, with built form density

losing as much as 40%, activity density cut in half, and the Haymarket no longer holding an

advantage in network load density. Throughout the life of the Park East Freeway, built form

density remained above the city average, but only a fraction of the level seen prior to the

freeway. Activity density fluctuated from slightly below to slightly above the city average,

indicating that in the final decades of the Park East Freeway the Haymarket began to develop

Figure 50: Increase of Development Density over Local Average, Haymarket, Milwaukee, WI.

REVIVING URBANISM

67

more attractions. However, as network load density consistently remained half that of the city

average, this area would be unable to promote the level of pedestrianism necessary for a vibrant

community. In 2000, as the battle to remove the Park East Freeway raged, the Haymarket

showed elevated levels of all three density measures, the only instance after the freeway era in

any of the case studies.

Conclusion

This longitudinal analysis of the construction, removal, and replacement of urban

freeways serves as a starting point for a field of research that will require many more cases and

more granular data. Over the course of seven decades, each impact zone saw a decline in

population, employment, housing, and development density, followed by an increase in all of

these areas. The similarities in the inflection points explain the dramatic impact that urban

freeways had regardless of their placement. In all three instances, population density fell to a low

point the decade following the opening of the urban freeway. Housing density followed in the

next decade. Instances where housing density and structural age diverge can be explained by

vacancy rates or the internal changes of housing units from single family homes to duplexes or

apartments. As population and housing densities fell, employment opportunities left the area. As

Kostoff explained, the area traditionally targeted by road builders house and employ the working

class and minorities. These cases follow this historic pattern.

However, it appears that the rate of decline has a greater impact on the rate of recovery

than any variation in the design of the replacement. All three areas have seen an increase in the

population of young working age adults. Similarly, all three areas have seen a concentration of

professional and management employees. These young professionals appear to be the earliest

REVIVING URBANISM

68

adopters of newly revived neighborhoods. With the addition of new amenities and attractions,

future research should determine if these individuals choose to age in place or if these areas are

only suitable for a certain demographic.

Equally interesting is the effect, or lack thereof, of the design approach on the

development density. All three areas experienced increases in both built form density and

activity density. This is understandable as civic investment tends to drive private investment.

However, only Haymarket, the lowest scoring design approach, saw an improvement of the

relative network load density. The failure of the other two areas to see a similar shift can be

explained by the exaggerated time frame of each replacement project. After a decade of ballot

initiatives, residents of Hayes Valley had adjusted to life without the freeway. Octavia Boulevard

may have even resulted in more network load capacity. Similarly, as one of the goals of the Big

Dig was to ease traffic congestion, network load capacity may have been increased over this time

frame.

Even though each impact zone experienced positive growth in all four metrics prior to the

demolition of the urban freeway, growth accelerated after the decision to remove was made and

again after the removal was complete. As these installations age and more cases become

available for study, the long-term impact of boulevard design may become clear. With multiple

urban freeway mitigation programs under consideration, adopted, or implemented in the last few

years, this field of research holds many opportunities for reassessment and reevaluation of

metrics. While it is not the purpose of this paper to determine how much land should be used for

transportation, perhaps these case studies can help to show that context sensitive transportation

infrastructure allows for greater economic activity in the immediately affected area. If it can be

REVIVING URBANISM

69

shown that an area will benefit from the recalibration of the transportation-land use equation, and

if the theory of urban development that density follows density and sprawl follows sprawl holds,

then this survey may show that the unavoidable solution to the problem of the urban freeway will

be to remove it.

REVIVING URBANISM

70

Endnotes

1 Dwight Young, Alternatives to Sprawl (Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1995), 4.



4 Talen, Emily, “Fixing the Mess We Made,” Planning, American Planning Association, Volume 76, No. 9,

November 2010. 5 Congress for the New Urbanism, “Highways to Boulevards,”http://www.cnu.org/highways.

6 Knack, Ruth Eckdish, “2011 National Planning Achievement Award for a Hard-Won Victory,” Planning,

American Planning Association, Volume 77, No. 4, April 2011. 7 Dan Bobkoff, “The End of the Road: Saying Goodbye to Urban Freeways,” NPR, Washington, DC, March 21,

2011, http://www.npr.org/2011/03/21/134743606/the-end-of-the-road-saying-goodbye-to-freeways. 8 Robert Cervero, Junhee Kang, and Kevin Shively, “From elevated freeways to surface boulevards: neighborhood

and housing price impacts in San Francisco,” Journal of Urbanism Vol. 2, No. 1 March 2009, 31-50. 9 Eric Jaffe, “Is Removing a Major Road Really a Good Idea?” The Infrastructurist, March 24, 2011,

http://www.infrastructurist.com/2011/03/24/is-removing-a-major-road-really-a-good-idea/. 10

Spiro Kostof, “His Majesty the Pick: The Aesthetics of Demolition,” Streets: Critical Perspectives on Public

Space, Ed. Zeynep Celik, Kiane Favro, and Richard Ingersoll (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1994),

16. 11

Spiro Kostof, “His Majesty the Pick: The Aesthetics of Demolition,” Streets: Critical Perspectives on Public

Space, Ed. Zeynep Celik, Kiane Favro, and Richard Ingersoll (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1994),

21. 12

Norman Bel Geddes, Magic Motorways (New York, NY: Random House, American Book-Stratford Press, Inc.,

1940), 41. 13

Jeffrey R. Brown, Eric A. Morris, Brian D. Taylor, “Planning for Cars in Cities: Planners, Engineers, and

Freeways in the 20th

Century,” Journal of the American Planning Association 75, 2 (Spring 2009): 162. 14

















1940), 16. 20


1940), 63. 21


1940), 63. 22


1940), 198. 23


1940), 199. 24


1940), 256-257. 25






Century,” Journal of the American Planning Association 75, 2 (Spring 2009): 170.

REVIVING URBANISM

71

27

Allan B. Jacobs, Elizabeth MacDonald, and Yodan Rofe, The Boulevard Book (Boston, MA: Massachusetts

Institute of Technology, 2002), 89. 28


1940), 189. 29


1940), 187. 30




Eric Avila and Mark H. Rose, “Race, Culture, Politics, and Urban Renewal: An Introduction,” Journal of Urban

History 35, no.3 (March 2009): 339-340. 32


1940), 288-9. 33


1940), 292. 34

Michael Hebbert, “Engineering, Urbanism and the Struggle for Street Design,” Journal of Urban Design 10, no.

1: 41. 35

Alex Marshall, How Cities Work: Suburbs, Sprawl, and the Roads Not Taken (Austin, TX: University of Texas

Press, 2000), 56. 36

Allan Jacobs & Donald Appleyard, “Toward an Urban Design Manifesto,” Journal of the American Planning

Association 53, 1 (1987): 114. 37

Britton Harris, “Goals for Urban Transportation,” Transportation Research 2 (20 March 1968): 249. 38

Lewis Mumford, “The Highway and the City,” The Highway and the City (New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace &

World, 1963), 236. 39





1: 41. 43


1: 46. 44


Press, 2000), 211. 45

The Urban Advisors to the Federal Highway Administrator, The Freeway in the City: Principles of Planning and

Design, A Report to the Secretary, Department of Transportation (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1968), 55. 46



Office, 1968), 12. 47



Office, 1968), 92. 48


1: 45. 49

Francesca Napolitan and P. Christopher Zegras, “Shifting Urban Priorities? Removal of Inner City Freeways in

the United States,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board No. 2046: 74. 50


Association 53, 1 (1987): 114-115. 51

Raymond A. Mohl, “The Expressway Teardown Movement in American Cities: Rethinking Postwar Highway

Policy in the Post-Interstate Era,” Journal of Planning History 11, no 1 (February 2012): 2. 52

Robert Cervero, “Freeway Deconstruction and Urban Regeneration in the United States” (presentation,

International Symposium for the 1st Anniversary of the Cheonggyecheon Restoration, Seoul, Korea, October 1 & 2,

2006). 53


1: 49.

REVIVING URBANISM

72

54












Press, 2000), 211. 60



Century,” Journal of the American Planning Association 75, 2 (Spring 2009):174. 61





Robert Cervero, “Freeway Deconstruction and Urban Regeneration in the United States” (presentation,

International Symposium for the 1st Anniversary of the Cheonggyecheon Restoration, Seoul, Korea, October 1 & 2,

2006). 64

Norquist, John O., “Transit corridors, when properly planned and coordinated, can help bring people of diverse

ages, races, and incomes into daily interaction, strengthening the personal and civic bonds essential to an authentic

community.” Charter for the New Urbanism, Ed Michael Leccese and Kathleen McCormick, McGraw-Hill, New

York, 2000, 97-99. 65


1: 49. 66


Association 53, 1 (1987): 118. 67

Allan B. Jacobs, Elizabeth MacDonald, and Yodan Rofe, The Boulevard Book (Boston, MA: Massachusetts

Institute of Technology, 2002), 7. 68


Press, 2000), 6. 69


Press, 2000), xix. 70


Press, 2000), 11. 71

Jane Jacobs. The Life and Death of Great American Cities (New York: Vintage Books, 1992), 150. 72


Press, 2000), 12. 73

Jane Jacobs. The Life and Death of Great American Cities (New York: Vintage Books, 1992), 150. 74

Daniel G. Chatman. “Deconstructing development density: Quality, quantity and price effects on household non-

work travel,” Transportation Research Part A No. 42 (2008): 1010. 75








the United States,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board No. 2046: 69.

Documents

Reviving Urbanism