A Picture’s Worth A Thousand Words
by Lewis DerkinsJune 19th, 2008, 11:06 pm
And sometimes that picture conceals a truth that’s worth a thousand more. I discovered that when a Streetsblogger threw this picture (right) in my face to prove that I’m full of it, and that cars are a terrible scourge on humanity. I could almost sense the smugness as I read the comment pointing out that Park Avenue used to look peaceful and quiet before the evil cars came along.
I have to admit, at first, I was shocked. Clearly the picture shows something incredible – a picturesque avenue with a nice pedestrian park stretching into infinity and St. Bartholomew’s Church clearly visible to the right – there’s no mistaking what you’re looking at.
This seemed to directly contradict what I knew about Park Avenue’s long history as a major traffic thoroughfare for not only cars, but horses and buggies, and steam trains before that. But things that seem too good to be true often are, and when confronted with something that flew in the face of everything I thought I knew, I decided to do some fact checking to see if what I saw in the photograph matched up to reality.
The short answer is that it doesn’t. This is a camera trick. But you would never know that by reading Streetsblog or any of the other handful of crony imitators who use this picture as a talking point rather than a legitimate discussion piece.
Though I suspect that the original copy of this picture is somewhere in a city archive, I could only trace the origins back to Aaron Naparstek, the Editor-in-Chief of Streetsblog.org. (I live in DC, so I only have easy access to online archives from New York) Mr. Naparstek used this picture on December 9, 2005, for what I’m sure was a very dramatic effect during a lecture he gave to a brownbag lunch seminar of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council.
At this seminar, he presented a 22 megabyte presentation, on how New York City is essentially out of space to devote to automobiles. In his presentation, he contrasted the above photo, taken pre-1920, with this one (right), taken circa 1922 to prove the point that the “surface transportation system is broken”.
I actually agree with Mr. Naparstek that there is no more space to devote to automobiles in New York, but I disagree that the solution to the traffic problems is to take space away from cars in favor of bicycles.
Thus, I feel that a comparison between these two pictures is fallacious for several reasons.
First, the original picture of a car-free Park Avenue uses a clever photography trick called forced perspective to create an optical illusion that doesn’t exist. You’re familiar with forced perspective if you’ve seen the Lord of the Rings movies – that’s how they make actors appear to be hobbitt-sized and standing right next to giants, when in reality all the actors are the same height and positioned several feet in front of, or behind, each other. Forced perspective can do neat things like make objects appear closer to the camera, which is why St. Bart’s front steps appear to descend into the park in Mr. Naparstek’s picture. It looks much closer to the park than it actually is because the photographer has cleverly positioned his camera low and at an angle that takes advantage of a vanishing point that makes the street magically disappear. But I can assure you, the street is there. Mr. Naparstek never claims that it isn’t, but the impact is unmistakable - from virtually no streets, to nothing but streets choked with traffic, virtually overnight.
Below is a real estate map of this same block of Manhattan from New York’s archives during the period of 1920-22 – the same period of Mr. Naparstek’s photograph. (Here is a larger version) This map clearly shows the wavy walkways of the “park” sitting right in front of St. Bart’s just like in the picture. Unfortunately, what it also shows are roads on either side of the park, thus revealing the forced perspective trick.
Here are the two, side by side for comparison with the areas in contention highlighted.
The problem is that anti-car websites have latched onto this picture as if it were scripture straight from God himself. Sites like noimpactman.typepad.com, treehugger.com, and carfree.com have adopted Mr. Naparstek’s picture as proof-positive of their vision. Even sites not directly in the fray like Gothamist.com have picked this up to report on it. This reaction to the contrast from carfree.com is typical:
In a humane streetscape, pedestrians make beelines from point to point, when hurrying, and when at leisure, wander in loops and digressions. Pedestrians walk quicker or slower, or stop entirely, as their purposes dictate - not according to arbitrary mechanical timers.
This elaboration on the great (and imaginary) advantages of the “humane streetscape” follows a lament over the change in the pictures after “the advent of the automobile”. Aside from the inaccurate understanding of the timeline involved in the adoption of the automobile, this author clearly has taken the following message from Mr. Naparstek’s presentation - there were no automobiles and all was right with the world, then along came cars to ruin everything.
Mr. Naparstek has done nothing to correct this erronious assumption about what his picture really shows. Now, to be fair to him, he can’t really be held accountable for what every loony decides to take away from the presentation and spout off about - in fact, he will probably take issue with what I have to say about it. But these aren’t random crackpots - most of them are linked to on Streetsblog. In fact, Streetsblog published its own post using this picture.
Streetsblog championed the cause embodied in the car-free Park Avenue picture on January 4, 2007, after a pedestrian, Peter Hornbeck, was killed on Park Avenue by a car. Mr. Hornbeck’s tragic death inspired a Streetsblog author to write this in reference to Mr. Naparstek’s picture:
While I certainly don’t expect Park Avenue’s median to be restored to its verdant, pre-1922 width any time soon, the photo above illustrates the absurdity of pitting streetscape aesthetics against pedestrian safety. Clearly, Park Avenue was once a whole lot more beautiful and a whole lot more safe than it is today as a roaring six-lane parkway.
(emphasis added)
In actuality, this is another absolute falsehood. In fact, on January 29th of this year, Mayor Bloomberg’s office issued a press release stating that traffic fatalities are at the lowest they have ever been since record keeping began in 1910. That’s at least concurrent with the timeframe of, if not before, Mr. Naparstek’s photograph. This historic low also encompasses pedestrian fatalities. In fact, in 1910, there were 232 pedestrian deaths. By contrast there were 136 pedestrian fatalities last year – a 41% decrease from 1910; a time before the widespread adoption of automobiles.
The only thing clear about Mr. Naparstek’s picture is that it’s very scenic and pretty. Mr. Naparstek is the Editor-in-Chief of Streetsblog. He is in a position to correct this mistaken assumption, but he remains silent.
The map below (large version), which connects to the other real estate map (above) at its top border, shows the continuation of Park Avenue as it heads north. Contrary to what the car-free Park Avenue picture shows, this “park” doesn’t stretch to the end of the city either, it ends after three blocks. (Actually, it does continue, but not the picturesque, pedestrian friendly walkway with benches. It’s more of a wider version of what’s there today.) This reveals the clever use of a low vanishing point to obscure this fact.
I found several other maps made prior to these that all show Park Avenue as open to traffic for vehicles. This one from 1916 (right) shows Park Avenue as a road, not a park; parks are clearly marked on the map. This one (not shown) from a 1920 bluebook for motorists shows Park Avenue as traversable for automobiles, something I would find ludicrous if printed in a sightseeing manual for motorists when untrue.
The natural inference that Mr. Naparstek intends for you to make with his pictures is that we took a beautiful pedestrian oasis and paved it over without a care in the world, and “look at the terrible traffic now and all the assorted social ills” (add a frowny face for emphasis). I concede that the road has been widened into the park, and that the community lost something by doing this, but the implication that the road was never there, and thus an unwelcome intruder into a car-free urban utopia, is patently false. In fact, a steam and dirt belching railroad (the New York and Harlem Railroad) was there before the road (or much of anything else) was ever formally constructed. The train was eventually forced underground so that rich people wouldn’t be bothered by the noise and pollution, and the road (formerly 4th Avenue) was renamed “Park Avenue” to make it more appealing. The whole “park” was a real estate scheme designed to hide the filth of one of the city’s major transportation arteries, and Grand Central Station came into being to serve as the terminus for the steam trains so they wouldn’t bother people further downtown. From Gothamist.com:
“In the mid to late nineteenth one of the all time great real estate schemes was brought into effect: The rails leading into Grand Central were to be put underground, and Fourth Avenue would be renamed the far classier sounding Park Avenue. The plan worked like gangbusters and previously worthless land became some of the most valuable property in the world.”
Even once the decision was made to move the railroad underground, the plans still included cars. In fact, here’s a picture circa 1901 (above) that shows a cross section of Park Avenue with the trains running underneath. Notice the little motorized car driving down Park Avenue, which leads me to my second point.
If you look closely at Mr. Naparstek’s picture, you can actually tell where the roads are, and there are cars in this picture. Look over the shoulder of the man sitting on the left bench. Those are three cars either parked or driving on the road. The first car appears to be partially obscured by some obstacle, but it looks like you can make out the top of the front grille and the windshield. The second car seems to have the distinctive 20’s-era headlights visible. Here are some pictures of Model-T fords that would have been driven during this era for comparison. A model 1907; a 1919 high-body Model T; and a model 1920.
Those are automobiles parked on the street in front of the entrance to the building on the left, and there are also cars on the right. When Mr. Naparstek shrunk the picture, it made them hard to pick out, but they are in there.
The central point of this diversion is that a scarcity of cars in this photograph doesn’t prove that there was no traffic on Park Avenue. Here is a picture (right) from the Pope’s visit to New York this year. It is taken somewhere in the vicinity of 55th and Madison and clearly shows St. Patrick’s Cathedral. The streets miraculously appear empty. Without any explanation that the police have blocked off the street for the special event, you may be forgiven for assuming that New York is a giant pedestrian Shangri-La. Here is another modern picture (below) of Broadway with virtually no cars.
I’m sure no one would dispute that these pictures don’t accurately portray the traffic situation in New York, so why does anyone assume that Mr. Naparstek’s picture accurately portrays the traffic of pre-1920’s Park Avenue just because of its vintage?
There’s an old journalists’ saying along these lines – some facts are just too good to check. And unfortunately that perfectly describes Mr. Naparstek’s picture, and leads to my third point.
Mr. Naparstek has been using this picture to drum up support for anti-car initiatives for several years now. From his own website:
The two photos above were part of a presentation I did on Wednesday, November 16 for the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council’s monthly brown bag lunch seminar. In my talk I argued that New York City’s current surface transportation system is broken, dysfunctional and in increasingly urgent need of repair. Then I offered five ideas that could go along [sic] way towards fixing it:
• Better Bike infrastructure
• Traffic-calming
• Pedestrian & public space improvements
• Bus rapid transit
• Congestion charging
All of those ideas are anti-automobile, and one of the main arguments that supports them is based on a camera trick and erroneous facts.
The problem with all of this is that by continuing to provide this picture as “evidence” in support of his cause, Mr. Naparstek, and anyone else for that matter, is either intellectually lazy, or intellectually dishonest.
I’m willing to give Mr. Naparstek the benefit of the doubt and say that it’s the former and not the latter. He probably dredged his picture up somewhere and thought to himself, “this is too good to be true,” and unfortunately for him, it is. It’s also very convenient that people draw an assumption that Park Avenue was car free from the picture without Mr. Naparstek having to explicitly state it.
Mr. Naparstek may be forgiven his mistake in using this picture without further research up until now, but continuing to use this picture to influence public policy without calling attention to its stylistic slight of hand from this point forward is intellectual dishonesty, on anyone’s part.
The “solutions” the Streetsblog camp offers are all either openly hostile to cars or can only be accomplished at the expense of cars.
Better bike infrastructure requires the diversion of funds that fix roads to make new paths for bikes, in some instances, it involves making traffic lanes more narrow in order to widen bike lanes. Traffic-calming primarily involves engineering measures to slow down (and congest) traffic. Pedestrian and public space improvements carry the same baggage as expanded bike infrastructure. Bus rapid transit displaces traffic from some lanes into others, thereby producing more congestion in favor of buses that carry less people, less frequently, down newly empty lanes. Congestion pricing is a direct and oppressive tax on automobiles that has been roundly criticized on multiple counts and has been repeatedly rejected by voters.
All of the above anti-car proposals have their advantages as well as their drawbacks. There are valid points to Streetsblog’s side of the argument. But we cannot have a meaningful discussion about the correct way to improve our transportation infrastructure if the entire dialogue is predicated on a falsity.
New York should pay attention. The Livable Streets Movement wants to displace cars in favor of bicycles. Their main argument is that you are in more danger than you used to be in and your quality of life is worse off than it was - all because of cars. But this assertion doesn’t stand up to intellectual rigor. Banning cars, or severely restricting them will drive up the cost of every single thing that you buy, from toothpaste to food to furniture. Mr. Naparstek may say that’s not Streetsblog’s intention, but look at the tone of the posts. Look at the sites that Streetsblog links to: Carfree USA? Doesn’t sound like you’ll get an honest debate there. Look at the posts on the others that use this picture - it’s clear what they want, and it’s not more bike lanes - they want NO CARS ON THE ROADS.
This is a real issue that affects you in real ways. It is a valid point that Park Avenue may be a lot nicer if it were returned to pre-1922 condition, but the cars in the post-1922 picture came from somewhere – other streets – and widening Park Avenue’s traffic lanes relieved that congestion. You should demand that the debate on this issue is grounded in truth, not in Streetsblog propaganda that relies on tricks and deception. Don’t allow your public policy to be hijacked by vocal radicals with a clever ruse up their sleeves.
The Streetsblog Truth Squad
- Part 1: Car Haters: Streetsblog
- Part 2: Pete at Streetsblog: “Few Ideas” at Commuter Outrage
- Part 3: Who Is Mark Gorton?
- Part 4: StreetsBlog: StreetCritiques
- Part 5: Pick Your Poison - Gas, Guns, or Elitism
- Part 6: Streetsblog’s Comment Moderation Policy: Waaaaaaaaaaa!
- Part 7: A Picture’s Worth A Thousand Words
- Part 8: Bike Box?
Posted in Bus-Only Lanes, Congestion Pricing, Mass Transit, Politics, Railroads, Spending, Traffic Congestion, Tunnels, Uncategorized Rage |
wow, that was a thorough research and presentation.
as much as I would like to see less cars in the city, i’m not in support of getting rid of all cars and replace them with bicycles. bicycles have as much chance of killing pedestrians as cars.
In fairness to Mr. Naparstek, I don’t think he would say that he’s in favor of getting rid of all cars either.
The problem I have with his presentation is that it elicits a very dramatic assumption when you look at it, which also happens to be incorrect.
The first thing I thought when I looked at this picture was, “Holy crap, there were no cars on Park Avenue, and I don’t see roads either.” I showed this to a few other people without any explanation other than the fact they were looking at Park Avenue, and their reactions were the same.
Obviously that’s only anecdotal evidence, but I’m a fairly skeptical person, and if it fooled me at first, I’m sure that it fools plenty of other people. I was curious enough to spend a couple of hours over the past two nights digging up the truth. My bet is that the average person won’t bother. They’ll take what they see at face value and walk away with the mistaken impression that Park Avenue was once car free, and that as a society we sold our souls to the big three.
I’m not saying that it’s good that we lost the park in front of St. Bart’s; I’m saying that we should at least have an honest beginning to the discussion about why it went away. It went away for a variety of reasons, and the car was only one of them.
I would be willing to bet that even if the car had never been invented, the park still would have gone away because at the rate New York grew, you would have needed the room for horse-drawn carriages anyway. So mourn the loss, fine, but let’s be honest about the traffic needs of a city with 8+ million residents.
People have been throwing this picture up and talking about it as if Park Avenue had no cars at one point, and that simply isn’t true.
Many of the people who are saying these things have links to Streetsblog and Mr. Naparstek. He must know about the misinterpretation, but I don’t see him setting the record straight.
I have to question the validity of “circa 1922” date attached to the photo Mr. Naparstek uses to compare to the earlier scene of Park Avenue. The automobiles in the photograph appear to be of very late 1920’s or early 1930’s manufacture and are not consistent with cars existent in 1922. The car in the bottom left of the frame, a five-window style coupe, is likely a Ford Model A, first manufactured in 1928. I find this interesting in light your earlier findings.
Reed -
That is interesting. Though, I think Mr. Naparstek would say that in his brief he labels this picture as “Post 1922,” so it could encompass the time period you have in mind. In 1922, there were improvements to the road(widening the lanes), and that’s where the date comes from.
Maybe I shouldn’t have used “circa 1922″ to describe the picture - it may confuse the issue, but I don’t know its exact date, and Mr. Naparsteks intention is clearly to imply that there was a rapid change over a short period of time, hence the time of the pictures should be closer together.
If he didn’t intend for that comparison to be made, then he could have taken a current picture and added it. He’s clearly trying to contrast images from roughly the same time frame. It may be later than I assume, and Mr. Naparstek never specifically identified it as “from 1922″, but it’s obviously supposed to be taken very close to that timeframe.
I think that Naparstek should have been more precise in the dates of the photographs he used to make his case. Any confusion here is his fault.
Pre 1922? Post 1922? That’s remarkably vague. “Post 1922″ could mean 1923, 1929, 1935, 1950, or 2008. It’s actually quite sloppy, come to think about it.
“Circa 1922″ is a much better designation, Lewis. I think you made the right call there.
Also, if you look at Naparstek’s slide presentation, you’ll notice that he labels the pre-1922 photo: “Park Avenue was once… a park! Until 1922″
(http://www.naparstek.com/2005_12_01_archive.php - click on “Aaron’s European Transportation Vacation Slide Show.”)
In other words, Park Avenue was always this way! Perhaps dating back to the founding of the republic! That’s very misleading.
You guys are complete nut cases.
Dave -
Is that good or bad?
Dave Edelstein’s comment is the cry of someone who has no ability to respond cogently to your argument.
Bravo Lewis
I would like for someone who disputes my findings to tell me where I’m wrong, or what portion of my call for an honest debate is unreasonable.
Lewis:
You are all over the place so it’s pretty difficult to tell what point your trying to make here but it seems that the premise of your critique is based on the idea that you can’t call the 1920’s-era Park Avenue a “park” because it had these two vehicular service lanes running alongside it. You seem to feel that the presentation of the photo is somehow deceitful or dishonest because it emphasizes the park-like nature of this period in Park Ave. history rather than the four or five vehicles you found in the background.
What you may not be aware of is that all of the major parks in New York City have roadways in them. The circular drives in Central and Prospect Parks have been retrofit for automobiles and are still today used as rush hour traffic relief valves. The west side highway and many other highways in the metro region were built by the New York State Parks Dept Commissioner Robert Moses as linear parks. He sold his highways to the public by attaching them to parks. The West Side highway is, technically, running through a state park.
So there is no “slight of hand” or “intellectual dishonesty” here. Everyone who would be involved in the NYC public policy discussion would be well aware that parks can and do have cars in them. Calling a piece of land in NYC a “park” doesn’t mean it is a “car-free” space. Very much to the contrary. I can’t imagine that the presentation of this photos was accompanied by a demand to return Park Avenue to it’s nearly car-free state, though, ironically, that is exactly what will be happening during three Sunday’s this coming August.
The fact that the old Park Avenue had a pair of service roads running alongside of it is not particularly remarkable or noteworthy. What is interesting about this photo is the fact that a stretch of Midtown Park Avenue, now an 8-lane motorway, once had this quite beautiful and substantial piece of park land running down the middle of it. Who knew? I certainly didn’t.
Your “findings” seem neither to be interesting nor relevant. Nor do you appear to debunk or refute anything. You go back and forth on yourself so much in here it’s not even clear what point you’re trying to make. It’s not at all clear what you are trying to debate or why anyone would even bother spending time debating you. Which reminds m… . . .
You’ve been busy today. I don’t know what you find hard to follow about the argument, but it’s noted that you prefer a different style, I’ll take it under advisement.
I’m well aware of the history of roads in the parks, in fact I had a discussion a couple of weeks ago with some Streetsbloggers on that very subject. If you classify 4th/Park Avenue a “service road” I wonder why all the other roads on the map are the same width? Are those all service roads too?
What’s dishonest about this picture is that it is presented in a way to minimize any appearance that Park Avenue was a heavily trafficked thoroughfare during the time in question, which it was, immediately before a picture pops up showing nothing but cars in apparent gridlock on Park Avenue.
The implication is that the widening of Park Avenue had this effect and brought evil cars into our midst, which it did not.
I notice that there are actually more cars on these roads than people in the park – so what exactly is your point? Why is it a bad thing that New York had a road that was used and a park that wasn’t and so they chose to expand the busy road into the not so busy park?
I don’t know what government officials you’re used to working with, but I worked for, or with, the government for years, and I would be absolutely astounded if most of them knew anything about the history you cite.
Even if they do know the history, it’s not the presentation to a Transportation Council that worries me. This is being used to influence public policy with the general public in an attempt to get them to influence elected officials who will then lean on the Transportation Council. The average person will almost certainly not know the history you reference, but will be duped by this false comparison, which is what propagandists like you – who can’t win a debate on the merits of honest ideas - probably hope for.
I’m aware of your Street Scene event. I wrote a post about it. I don’t see what the big deal is. Why close the streets down to cars? There already aren’t any cars on them – look at this picture of Madison and 55th. Ooops….looks like I just did the same thing as Mr. Naparstek.
One more thing - find one instance in this post where I go back and forth on myself. If you can, I will issue you a public apology on this site.
That is simply not the fact.
Park Ave. below Grand Central was busy and congested but this uptown segment of Park Avenue was not a very heavily trafficked thoroughfare during this time period. It only had two travel lanes running alongside a rather substantial park and wide sidewalks and was mostly in the process of being developed into the neighborhood that it is today.
For the most part, the Upper East side and far east side were still low rise with significant tracts still undeveloped. Even by 1922 standards, the service roads on either side of the Avenue’s park were empty. And that’s exactly what the real estate developers were going for. This stretch of Park Ave simply didn’t have substantial roadway capacity. It couldn’t be heavily trafficked even if people wanted to jam it with their cars.
The photo is what it is. There was a brief period of time when most of the very wide public right-of-way on this segment of Park Ave. was configured as park land. This fact seems to threaten you deeply.
As I read it, this photo was presented as a way of illustrating the idea that it is possible to use urban streets for other purposes than storing and moving automobiles. And that there are places and have been times, even in NYC’s own history, when we treated streets very differently than we do today. As someone who grew up in a completely auto-dominated NYC, I find the Park Avenue photo remarkable. I know Park Avenue as an 6- to 8-lane traffic sewer that I can barely walk across fast enough not to get caught in traffic. It’s remarkable to see that a majority of the avenue was once configured as park land. I had no idea.
Your photo of 55th Street shows a street that is, for a moment, empty for whatever reason. The historic photo shows a famous urban avenue that was, for a few years, configured primarily as park land for whatever reason. The historic photo is interesting and worthy of all kinds of discussion. Your photo is not interesting and doesn’t seem to make whatever point it is you are trying to make.
But mainly, you produce an incredible amount of words for someone who, literally, has no idea what he’s talking about.
Vukovich –
I laughed out loud when I read your comment. I love arguments like yours, you give me all the ammunition I need to completely refute everything you just said.
In fact, I’m convinced this will be so easy, I’m going to time how long it takes me to destroy this argument. I’m working off the clock and having a friend time me.
Your assertion about the development in this area up to this point is completely false.
Here is yet another map of Park Avenue all the way up at 96th street that shows two things: The exposed Railroad tracks, and a relatively densely populated city nearly twice as far up Park Avenue as the picture.
The Naparstek picture shows nothing but high rise buildings. I studied architecture, and I took some urban planning classes, and I can tell you that during the time frame of this picture, high rise buildings only existed in densely populated areas. They didn’t spring up out of nowhere for no reason. They tend to develop once a city reaches a high enough density that it only makes sense to build up.
These aren’t “feeder” or “service” roads. They are as wide, and in many cases wider than any of the other roads on the maps. In other words they are built to carry just as much traffic as any of the other roads in the city. The only thing different is that this road also had a park that no one used in the middle of it, and so when traffic became too heavy for the other roads to handle, this was a road that was easy to expand. Since no one used the park, it got sacrificed.
Mr. Naparstek’s photo isn’t what is seems, just like my picture of Madison isn’t what it seems.
But my favorite part of your comment has to be this:
“As I read it, this photo was presented as a way of illustrating the idea that it is possible to use urban streets for other purposes than storing and moving automobiles. And that there are places and have been times, even in NYC’s own history, when we treated streets very differently than we do today.”
This leads me to believe that you are either a) a sheltered academic who has never ventured off of your college campus to join the real world, b) a Streetsblogger who has absolutely no interest in the truth or an honest discussion, c) either Mark Gorton of Aaron Naparstek himself, d) all of the above.
Streets exist for one purpose, and have since ancient times when they were first built – to move people and goods efficiently. The idea of using them for something else, for example - leisure in a park-like atmosphere as this picture suggests, is the complete antithesis of that concept. Streets exist for movement, parks exist for lounging. The two are not compatible.
I suppose we could use anything that exists for a utilitarian function as something else – we could easily turn our interstates into playgrounds for preschoolers, our water pipes could carry electricity, we could turn the Empire State Building into a zoo, we could even treat Central Park as a resource for the logging industry. But we don’t do any of those things because it doesn’t make sense to do them. Those things exist for specific purposes – just like streets do. And the purpose of a street is to convey traffic from one place to another and move the people and goods that make your life possible in the process. They aren’t a place for a leisurely book read, and to be honest, I don’t think that a park sandwiched in between two roads would be a desirable place to hang out anyway. That’s probably why it went away – most people probably felt the same – including those people living in the high rises visible in the picture but conspicuously absent from the park.
For the record, this entire comment, including the research took me exactly 22 minutes.
Vukovich -
I notice you still haven’t taken me up on my offer to find a contradiction in my post in exchange for a public apology.
I’ve been to Central Park thousands of times. Here’s what it looks like on a nice, sunny day:
http://static.flickr.com/73/169144505_b016ddb50d_b.jpg
Very different than the sad showing in Mr. Naparstek’s photo which, judging by the light exposure and the lack of warm weather attire, was taken on a nice, sunny day.
Vukovich -
Here’s another fun fact for you to think about. According to the 2000 census, Manhattan has a population today of 1,537,395. On Manhattan’s 22.96 square miles of land area, that’s a population density of 66,951 per square mile.
By contrast, according to the 1900 census Manhattan had a population of 1,850,093 in 1900. That’s a population density of 80,578 per square mile.
So you would have us believe that there were vast tracts of undeveloped land in Manhattan around 1920 that allowed Park Avenue to be a relatively empty thoroughfare when there were actually more people living there than there are today in much lower rise buildings?
Sorry, but that math doesn’t add up. Those people were living somewhere. If you look at the maps I found at the archives, you can see where - next to Park Avenue.
Lewis,
This one takes the cake.
First of all the quality of the research here, outstanding. Love it.
Streetsblog might want to invest in getting you to fact check their poo.
Now, If you’ll excuse me, I have a date with a short stack at IHOP.
G-d Bless,
SEE YOU AT IHOP.
Mr. Kaag
Lewis,
Your critique above is based on the premise that this park-like section was “a heavily trafficked thoroughfare during the time in question.”
That claim is simply not factually correct.
These maps do not support your assertion that the street was heavily trafficked. You have not presented any actual evidence to back up that claim. Do I actually have to go and dig up the traffic counts for you?
This assertion is also not supported by facts:
For centuries prior to the advent of the automobile, the television and Internet shopping, in cities around the world, transportation was one of many activities taking place on urban streets. Vendors sold goods in the street. Kids played ball and adults sat at tables, drank tea and played backgammon in the street. Artists and actors provided entertainment in the street. Public notices were posted, announced and discussed in the streets. Politics and demonstrations took place in the street.
The Roman Forum. The Greek Agora. The Arab Shuk. In the urban core, streets were, for centuries and across every civilization, used primarily as a public space and marketplace — the place to exchange goods and information. Transportation was only one part of this process of exchange and, unlike today, transportation (and vehicular storage) was not necessarily the dominant activity on the street given that transportation took place mostly on foot, not within 3,000 lbs of metal. The idea that urban streets’ “one purpose” is vehicular transportation is an idea that emerged only in the last 60 to 80 years. It’s a very modern American idea.
Over the long haul of history, auto-dominated cities are likely to be a blip. The trend is now going the other way. Increasingly, first-world, western cities are rebalancing their streets and returning them to non-transportation purposes — Copenhagen, Paris, London, New York…
As for this public apology thing… what in the world are you even talking about? Are you really so narcissistic that you imagine that some “public” is sitting around awaiting an apology from Lewis Derkins?
What is becoming increasingly clear here is that you simply have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to urban history, transportation policy and any number of topics. And for as much crap as you throw against the wall, you are totally unable to provide actual evidence for your arguments.
Fantabulous.
It’s pretty funny when you think that the streetsblog folk want to change the city that represents automobile capitalism at its finest.
They aren’t advocating to make Dayton, Ohio a more liveable place, are they? Nope! Those douchebags would never live there.
They want to live in a city so touched by man, so touched by the ideals of free market capitalism, that the whole world wants to be there. Why change what is arguably the most successfull city in the whole world?
They want the world center of commerce, where industrial / commercial giants like GM (creators of most expensive hi-rise building in NYC) and Chrysler (Landmark Building) into a large bike only park.
Go do your experiment in Toledo, or Fargo or some other place.
NYC doesn’t need to change. More and more people want to come here each year.
I’m gonna order two eggs with sausage today.
G-d Bless.
See you at IHOP.
Mr. Kaag
Vukovich -
If we’re going to turn this into a debate about evidence, I’d like to point out that I’ve provided several official sources of data, from maps in the archives to census data, and you have yet to give a clear convincing argument for why any one of those should be disbelieved.
On the other hand, your entire argument boils down to this - “I don’t believe it.”
The only piece of evidence you have to back up your side is your picture, which doesn’t show what you think it shows, as all of the evidence I have indicates. It must be difficult to adore something like this picture for years and then have someone with a modicum of skepticism come along and completely destroy a cleverly crafted illusion with about two and a half hours of internet research and a healthy dose of critical thinking.
Why don’t you produce your traffic counts? If that would conclusively prove your point, roll them out. I doubt they show what you claim. Something is going on in the highrises in that picture, and I guarantee it required a lot of vehicles to move the people who lived and worked there and the goods they needed.
As for your comparisons to ancient cultures:
From Dictionary.com - Road, Noun - a long, narrow stretch with a smoothed or paved surface, made for traveling by motor vehicle, carriage, etc., between two or more points; street or highway.
There are 11 other definitions. None of them refer to it as a public forum.
It’s funny you mention the Roman Forum - it has it’s own word in latin. Roads are called via or strata. You’re talking about different things. And Romans used roads militarily to conquer Europe, and to bring citizens into the city to visit the forum.
The forum, agora and souk were all akin to modern day city squares or circles. We still have those - they’re not roads. By contrast, Park Avenue was 4th Avenue on a map, and a railroad in reality, long before it ever was anything else. The park was an afterthought to help drive up rich people’s property values and make people want to live next to a filthy railroad. Judging by your picture, it worked.
I don’t know what movement you’re referring to with western cities, but all of those cities have vehicles as an integral part of their transportation infrastructure, and to my knowledge, there is no widespread intent to discontinue that. The only things going on right now are things like New York’s Street Scene - occasional street festivals - or congestion initiatives like congestion pricing, that are hurting businesses and aren’t really working that well. London is a great example, as a consequence of their traffic calming, businesses lost roughly 7%, there have been no measurable benefits, and voters in other UK cities have roundly rejected similar proposals for their own cities after seeing what happened to London.
On the public apology thing, if you don’t want it, I won’t give it - but again, I notice you still haven’t pointed out a single inconsistency with my argument despite the fact that you claimed that I “go back and forth on myself so much in here it’s not even clear what point you’re trying to make.”
In truth, you know exactly what point I’m making, which is why you’re offering such a determined, if feeble, resistance.
vukovich -
you say “Transportation was only one part of this process of exchange and, unlike today, transportation (and vehicular storage) was not necessarily the dominant activity on the street given that transportation took place mostly on foot, not within 3,000 lbs of metal.”
transportation is one factor of the urban landscape. you talk about the modern street as if nothing exists in the definition beyond the road itself. but streets include everything from sidewalks, parking spots, bikelanes, and businesses, shops, markets, retail, restaurants, bars, residences, condos, and all else that goes on in the modern urban env.
you also say: “Increasingly, first-world, western cities are rebalancing their streets and returning them to non-transportation purposes — Copenhagen, Paris, London, New York…”
please back this up with some solid evidence, cuz i cant take such a blanket statement seriously. how are new york’s streets changing (or, as you say returning - as if a purpose of roads has nothing to do with moving from point A to point B) to non-transportation purposes?
also, by transpotation, what exactly are you referring to? the movement of goods and services? or the movement of a human from point A to B? cuz, dude, streets include sidewalks, and uh, people walk on them.
gDubs -
Vukovich is busy tracking down traffic counts for Park Avenue to prove his point to me.
I will be very surprised if the counts show that traffic was light on Park Avenue. After all, Park Avenue was an artery that was so central to north-south traffic that they constructed a railroad to handle all of it.
And during the time frame in question, Manhattan was more densely populated than it is today, with less highrises for people to live in. There are highrises in the picture however, which means this was a densely populated area.
And the maps from the NYC archives show that the Park Avenue roads were just as wide as any other roads in that section of the city. This means they could handle traffic as heavy as any of the other roads, and I would be shocked to learn that people avoided Park Avenue for some reason, and chose instead to drive on other congested roads just so that rich people wouldn’t have any traffic near their park. That seems to contradict everything I learned about sociology that I learned in a couple of classes I took in college.
Based on the above, I would be shocked if Vukovich’s traffic counts prove me wrong, but you never know. Mr. Naparstek dug up the little picture that got this whole discussion started; the Streetsbloggers might have something else up their sleeves.
Lewis,
The Roman road network was equivalent to our Interstate highway system. We are talking about urban streets here, not the Imperial “Via” or I-95. Within the city, Roman streets were choked with a wide variety of human activity, contrary to your assertion that the streets of ancient cities only had “one purpose,” for transportation.
The maps that you point to don’t provide any meaningful evidence to back up your argument that Park Avenue was “a heavily-trafficked” thoroughfare during the time depicted in the photo. That nice old NYPL map is a property map. It provides detail about block and lot numbers. It doesn’t attempt to provide detail about street design, surface transit or traffic congestion.
What you need to do if you want to make this argument, is find a Park Avenue mid-day traffic count from 1922 and compare that number the modern-era 8-lane Park Avenue. The difference between the two numbers will be massive. And, no, I’m not going to do your work for you.
As for the question of density and development: In 1922, the Upper East Side and upper Manhattan was, for the most part, not yet a high rise neighborhood. Nor was it a place where one would find tall office buildings, huge hospitals or other generators of the kind of vehicular traffic congestion we see today. What you’d find during that period was mostly low-rise 3 to 5 story tenement-style development. Most of Manhattan’s density, industry and congestion was found downtown and along the waterfronts.
But let’s be clear what we’re talking about here because your m.o. seems to be to change the topic, nitpick and throw up as many words and illustrations as you can to distract from your own misinformation:
The critique in your blog post is premised on the assertion that the presentation of this photo was somehow “intellectually dishonest” because Park Avenue was a busy, heavily-trafficked roadway during the period the park photo was taken.
Your assertion is not factually correct and you have not supplied any actual evidence to back it up. If you want to accuse others of being “dishonest” then the burden of proof is on you. Go dig up the traffic counts or shut your face.
Vukovich –
I have to admire the sheer audacity of your argumentative style – you produce absolutely no evidence to support your position, throw out an allusion to some supposed source of information that proves you’re right, then when requested to pony up the info to prove your case, you say that it should be my job to prove your case for you.
That’s about as laughable as your picture – the idea that you would want your opponent to prove your argument. I’m sure if we followed those methods in our courts, we’d have a very equitable administration of justice.
Even though this is a completely ridiculous request, I am going to dig up the traffic counts. Unfortunately for you, I fear they aren’t going to prove your case, but even if they do, I will post the results of my findings and prove you right if that’s the truth, even though you seem unwilling to do it yourself.
The proper comparison for what you’re talking about isn’t a comparison of Park Avenue traffic counts between 1922 and 2008. The proper thing would be a comparison of traffic counts from Park Avenue between 50th and 53rd in 1920 – before the road improvements, covering the area in question in the picture, and concurrent with the picture’s timeframe – against the traffic counts from Madison, Fifth, Lexington and Third between 50th and 53rd in 1920 so that you can compare the traffic moving in the same direction on similar roads in the area. That would allow you to determine if Park Avenue was more, less, or equally trafficked than any of the other roads in this area of the city, which is a useful comparison.
It doesn’t matter what the difference is between now and then on Park – that’s not the issue - of course it will go up, just like it has on every other road in every other city in the country – that’s the natural result of something called population growth. The real issue is whether Park Avenue was heavily trafficked at the time of the picture, thus revealing whether your picture is an accurate representation of the traffic or not. “Heavy traffic” would be relative to the other streets in the city at the time in question, if Park carried more or equal traffic than the other roads, your picture would be wrong. If it carried substantially less, your picture would be right, and I would be wrong.
When I find the counts – which will take me some time, but I will find them if they exist – I will also throw in the traffic counts for some of the cross avenues, and some of the more well known streets downtown – like Broadway, Water Street and Wall Street for starters - to further offer a comparison between Park Avenue Traffic relative to the “densely populated” areas of the city. Then we’ll really know how Park Avenue stacks up.
The method you suggest would be incorrect to prove what you claim, but considering what you claim your picture proves, it’s not surprising that you would make this mistake – or perhaps you were hoping I was foolish enough to take your suggestion at face value?
Thus far, the only proof you have offered is an old photo. Photos are susceptible to tampering, falsification, illusion, and mistakes. Photographers have always used photos to highlight some particularly dramatic event, and many times, it has been found that the image was altered or posed to heighten the drama. These pictures from the Civil War are a very famous example.
During the time period of your photo, photographers routinely posed subjects for their shots. Your photographer has even used techniques to heighten the dramatic effect – forced perspective and a vanishing point. Why should I assume that your photo is what you say it is, rather than a carefully crafted scene that takes place during a special event where the road is closed for some purpose, and the photographer has carefully placed some people into the scene? So far you have offered no compelling reason for me to believe your version beyond either, “Look at the picture,” or, “you go find the evidence to prove I’m right.”
Unfortunately for you, that doesn’t prove anything about your photo other than the fact that it’s very nice to look at.
I concede that my maps are real estate maps, but they are drawn to scale, so the width of the roads can accurately be compared to the other roads. As for the street design, surface transit or traffic congestion, your picture shows cars, so I know the street was designed to accommodate them and they in fact transited the street. And since traffic congestion is the dominant issue in our debate – I would say that it’s fair for you to say that my maps don’t conclusively prove congestion, but nor does your picture refute it.
The traffic counts combined with either your picture or my maps would prove one way or the other who is right.
Based on the evidence we have at hand, you claim, “In 1922, the Upper East Side and upper Manhattan was, for the most part, not yet a high rise neighborhood. Nor was it a place where one would find tall office buildings, huge hospitals or other generators of the kind of vehicular traffic congestion we see today. What you’d find during that period was mostly low-rise 3 to 5 story tenement-style development.”
Your picture shows nothing but high rises. All the visible buildings appear to be between 12-18 stories tall – as far as the eye can see. This is where your low vanishing point doesn’t help you, it allows the line of the top of the buildings to continue much farther than the street and it allows you to compare the heights of the buildings to one another.
What difference does it make what all of the rest Manhattan looked like if this section of the city is clearly densely populated enough to support skyscrapers as far as the eye can see?
The fact is that the population density in New York was greater at the time of your picture than it is today. Those people were living somewhere and getting around somehow. My map shows a city that is thoroughly developed as real estate with large buildings lining Park Avenue, and densely clustered small buildings everywhere else. The amount of property shown on these maps as developed real estate supports my contention that lots of people lived in this area and moved through it. The census data that gives us the population density supports this too – look at how developed Manhattan is now to support less density.
You may be right that Upper Manhattan and the Upper East Side wasn’t as developed as it is today, but what difference would that make? St. Bartholomew’s is in Midtown - that’s at least ten blocks below the areas that you claim were underdeveloped. St. Bart’s is clearly visible on the right of the picture, so you don’t have a picture of Upper East Side, or Upper Manhattan, you have a picture of Midtown, and clearly a heavily developed one at that.
I agree that the burden of proof is on me if I want to accuse someone of dishonesty. But I think that, thus far, I can make a pretty compelling case that it would be absurd to assume that your picture tells the whole story.
Only finding the traffic counts would tell for certain – but in their absence (until I find them), I think my case is more compelling than yours based on what the picture actually shows, what we know about the history of Park Avenue, what we know about the population density of New York at the time in question, what we know about photographic techniques, and what the maps show as a clearly heavily developed city.
I will find those traffic counts if they exist, but let’s be clear about two more things:
First, my claim has never been that the original use of this picture was intellectually dishonest – I claim that further use of it without a discussion of the fact that you can’t see the streets, or without definitively solving the issue you and I are debating is.
Second, regardless of how unsubstantiated your arguments have thus far been, I have yet to tell you to “shut your face” and stop making them, nor will I. And I will not shut my face until evidence comes to light that induces me to do so.
so when the peddlar has his stuff all spread out, and the Roman Centurion comes rolling along in his chariot, who has to move?
that tells you what the primary purpose of the forum was.
Alvin C -
Hopefully, you’re not a chipmunk. That comment is pretty funny, but I think there’s something more central to the issue here that’s even more amusing.
Vukovich doesn’t have the traffic counts, and neither does anyone else.
Think about it, if he had them, why wouldn’t he just show them and prove me wrong so that I would “shut my face”.
There are only two reasons you wouldn’t show that kind of data:
1) You have the data, but know it disproves your point, so you’re trying to hide it.
or 2) You don’t have the data because it doesn’t exist or you haven’t looked for it.
Now, Vukovich told me to go look for it, implying that it could be found thus pointing us to the second option. He may be trying to waste my time, but he could easily shortcut the process, clue me in to the fact they don’t exist, and quickly claim victory because I’ll never be able to prove my point beyond the circumstantial evidence I already have.
This would make him safe - he could simply insist that we have two different interpretations of what the picture shows, and his is correct while mine isn’t.
The other possibility, and the only one that really makes sense if Vukovich is trying to win this debate - which he seems to be trying to do judging by the amount of time he’s spending on it - is that Vukovich doesn’t have the traffic counts because neither he, nor anyone else, has ever looked for them.
They have all simply assumed their picture tells the whole story without proving that it does.
Maybe they’re afraid of what they would find if they looked.
Either way, that lack of this evidence readily on hand after two years plus of this picture floating around speaks to the other charge I leveled against users of this picture - intellectual laziness.
We’re essentially asked by people like Vukovich to believe in the “idea that it is possible to use urban streets for other purposes than storing and moving automobiles. And that there are places and have been times, even in NYC’s own history, when we treated streets very differently than we do today.”
We are then treated to comparisons with the Roman Forum, which you called him out on, the Greek Agora and the Arab Souk - a pretty broad brush of an idea, which implies this is some universal principle throughout urban history.
But for an idea that large and expansive, the only proof we have about what New York’s former conception of streets consisted of is one picture of three blocks of a heavily developed stretch of Park Avenue that actually shows cars on the street with no other supporting evidence to refute the suggestion of a heavy traffic volume.
That is a very large assertion - claiming that the entire city of New York conceptualized streets as something other than what they are. Remember, the impact of that statement is societal - not individual, it talks about all streets in New York not just Park Avenue, and it basically turns everything we currently understand about what streets are good for and why they developed on its head. I literally don’t think you could make a more sweeping pronouncement from such scant “evidence,” but that’s what Vukovich has done.
That’s a pretty weak argument if ever I’ve seen one.
As the person who posted the original link to the photo, I’m suprised at all the fuss. A commenter named mike asked if anyone knew the history of Park Avenue “before excessive traffic was ‘foisted’ on it.” It was clear to me that he was referring to the Park Avenue at the time of the photo. It was also clear to me from the comments that followed, that the answer to his question was “no”. The commenters clearly were not aware that Park Avenue once looked like that. Lewis, if you thought my “smug” comment implied that Park Avenue was car-free, a simple clarification would have been sufficient (I think you may have made such a comment on the original thread). I made no other claims and offered no alternative history of Park Avenue, yet you created this entire post as a response to arguments I never made.
M –
Nice try. Mike’s comment wasn’t quite as benign as you try to make it out to be. It reads:
“Ah, ‘foisted’. Do you know what Park Avenue once was? Before excessive car traffic was ‘foisted’ upon it and the residents who lived on it?”
That’s in reference to my line from the post:
“Yes, Mayor Bloomberg, and those inconveniences are natural phenomena over which no one has control, not schemes foisted upon the citizens by the elected leaders that are supposed to look out for them.”
Mike is trying to employ something called sarcasm – you can tell by the “Ah” that prefaces his comment. He then asks a semi-rhetorical question designed to lead in to your little picture that proves traffic was “foisted” on an unsuspecting Park Avenue.
From stage left, enter yourself with:
“An old photo of Park Avenue. I don’t see any loud, noisy contraptions.”
Not seeing “any” loud, noisy contraptions is the same as saying car free, otherwise you would have said, “I don’t see many”.
Oh let me guess, your mistake?
Well guess what, it doesn’t really matter what you intended it to mean. I am aware of the history of Park Avenue, as this post and the successive comments clearly indicate. In fact, I have a much firmer grasp on it after a couple of days of research than you clowns have after two years of sending your Park Avenue photo around to try to prove that cars are some great evil.
And what’s even funnier is that I have exposed that the entire world view you hold so dear, and consider in some way summed up in this picture as a completely dubious guess that rests on one photograph and nothing else as evidence.
Ever single Streetsblogger in the world can come out of the woodwork to make nice with me now about how they didn’t really mean to imply one thing or another, but the fact is you, Mike, Vukovich and everyone else who uses that picture know about the deception it implies when you show it to people, and that’s exactly what you intend. And you know you have built a huge house of cards that is probably about to come crashing down, because you don’t have the one thing that would save you – the traffic counts to back this picture up, but I’m going to find them and see what they really say.
You people don’t have much behind your arguments other than blind faith, and that doesn’t require clarification from you.
M -
Thanks for turning me on to the picture though. It grabbed my attention and has been a great starting point for a series I’m going to do debunking all of the other myths Streetsblog perpetuates.
I have two more in the works right now. Stay posted.
By the way, in case you people haven’t figured it out already, Derk is a complete lunatic. When he says he’s going to track those traffic counts down, he means it.
And be warned, Naparstek, you better not pull a Sandy Berger.
If someone does something as childish as taking official records to try to hide them, that would pretty conclusively prove my point about Park Avenue.
Lewis, I assumed the photo was taken when there were no cars going by. Again, this was offered both as a response to a history of Park Avenue offered by “outraged” and seconded by you that did not acknowledge the destruction of the median for the expansion of automobile traffic. One reason I wasn’t feeling particularly “smug” when I posted the link was that I didn’t see the exact connection between this issue, raised by “mike”, and your original post about the street closings this summer.
I am not trying to “make nice”. I think you’re attacking a straw man that you’ve created. I do, however, appreciate the research you’ve done and will be interested to learn the traffic counts.
Alvin
Wheeled vehicles were not allowed within the city walls of Rome until after nightfall. Furthermore Roman’s didn’t ride in chariots, except during triumphal parades. Even a mounted roman would have been a rare site. Romans were most comfortable fighting on foot with short swords. All other functions were usually designated to foreign auxiliary troops.
little known fun fact, the romans actually used segways to get around. they loved them, cuz segways brought to the average roman all the pomp of a chariot, but didn’t require a horse, which, as rob notes above, were only used by foreigners.
Rob -
Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog: you understand it better, but the frog dies in the process. - Mark Twain
Back from a fun filled lunched at IHOP.
I went to the savory side of the menu, club sandwich that is.
Anyway, I think the key takeaway to this entire string of comments are these:
1) Use of the photo of Park Ave without any stats proves nothing. We have no clue if it was better or in fact worse back then. No matter, the human tendency is to eulogize the past. BTW, my office is at 320 Park Ave, across the street from St Bart’s. On a Saturday morning, I could take a photo that has no cars in the street too!!!
2) Car in its current basic form is here to stay. Whether it gets powered by fuel, or apple juice or whatever, is another topic of discussion. I am concerned that hatred for middle east countries rich in oil will translate into hatred for the machine that makes our world work. If we focused on developing alternate fuels instead of bloody bike paths, we’d be much better off. The solution here is alternate fuels not being able to bike down broadway.
In the immortal words of a good friend in the US Army: Piss Off.
G-d Bless,
SEE YOU AT IHOP
Mr. Kaag
Forgot to mention.
Lewis, your posts in this “unabomber” fashion are way way too long.
You have lost a good portion of your sanity. Aren’t you familiar with the term, “an economy of words”.
Maybe you can recharge your batteries over some stuffed French toast with sausage.
Only 3.99 for a limited time. Think about it…..
G-d Bless.
SEE YOU AT IHOP.
Mr Kaag.
This reminds me of a photo of a group of people sitting in the middle of the Sheridan Expressway without any vehicular traffic- to show that the road was unneeded and ought to be closed. IIRC it was created by the “Tri State Transportation Campaign”.
I wondered how long did they wait to find such a moment.
For those who don’t know him, Douglas is a card-carrying member of the “Pave the Earth” club.
nobody,
Wow, that’s a really useful revelation. No details too, which makes it all the more helpful.
Let’s say you’re right, and Douglas does want to expand the highways. Where’s the problem?
“I actually agree with Mr. Naparstek that there is no more space to devote to automobiles in New York,”
I disagree, as I think a bit in more dimensions:
http://cos-mobile.blogspot.com/2008/04/environ-elites-disregard-footprint-for.html
(a late 1800s proposal for greater space utilization beneath the streets)
http://cos-mobile.blogspot.com/2008/04/harvard-defeats-yale.html
( a current proposal for drilled tunnel roads to restore waterfront sanctity- with the capability of providing more capacity for everyone)
http://cos-mobile.blogspot.com/2008/07/westway-manhattan.html
(the Westway proposal for new tunnels in expanded landfill with new parks and real estate development)
http://cos-mobile.blogspot.com/2008/07/marcy-benstock-how-could-we-ever-tear.html
(the philosophy used against Westway that could be used against perhaps anything)
Remember that Manhattan’s anti-highway (re: anti cross town tunnels) serves to place the traffic through the less politically affluent Bronx as a clear case of environmental classism/racism)
Douglas -
I agree with you - they could always tunnel.
I meant they really don’t have space for it on the surface, unless you want to start talking about knocking down whole city blocks. But they don’t have to do that if they tunnel.