Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Urban transportain and green urban areas

  1. #1
         
    Registered
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Serbia
    Posts
    4

    Urban transportain and green urban areas

    Hello

    My name is Milos Radulovic and I'm a senior architecture student in Belgrade, Serbia. I'm part of a team of architects and architecture students, which has been put together to evaluate the current planning of urban transportation in our hometown - Belgrade. Belgrade is not Paris or New York, but it still has about 2 and a half million citizens (with suburbs) and in a period of economic development it's faced with growing transportation problem (congestion etc..) which have to be solved. Group, whose part I am, is formed after the decision of city council to allow construction of a bridge (they voted out the tunnel option cause it was 30 million euros more expensive, the bridge will be about 100 million euros) over the part of an important river island, the biggest green recreational in downtown Belgrade. The bridge will generate about 10 tons of led, sulfur, carbon dioxide right above basketball playground, 216 ha parks, man made lakes, river boat marina... the dilema is whether to build a bridge which will help city's economy but which will badly influence the recreational, nature areas above which it's gonna build

    I would like to ask anyone who knows of a city which has been faced with similar choice , to reply and give me some opinion or a link to a helpful site.

    Should the transportation and economy be the priority even when it leads to destruction of a natural resources in urban areas?

    thank you in advance

    sincerely
    Milos Radulovic

  2. #2
    Cyburbian Rumpy Tunanator's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Intervention
    Posts
    4,475
    If the bridge is going to negatively affect the park over time, I'd suggest to get them to cough up the extra $30 million to build the tunnel.
    A guy once told me, "Do not have any attachments, do not have anything in your life you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you spot the heat around the corner."


    Neil McCauley (Robert DeNiro): Heat 1995

  3. #3
    Cyburbian jordanb's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    City of Low Low Wages!
    Posts
    3,236
    A bridge for 100 million euros and a tunnel for 30 million more? Thigs sure are cheap there in belgrade.

    I think the city would be insane not to build the tunnel for that price.

    Also don't forget:

    1. Noise pollution
    2. The bridge's shadow.

  4. #4
    Cyburbian Cardinal's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    The Cheese State
    Posts
    9,893
    I'll disagree with the others and say that 30 million Euros would buy a lot of recreational land elsewhere, or make other environmental improvements to the region.

    What you describe is not all that uncommon here. In developed areas, it always seems that our departments of transportation look for the easiest, and least costly routes for new highways. The parks, forest preserves, and other open space set aside for recreation and wildlife are often compromised by road construction costs. The best you may hope for is that they are also constructed to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists, and perhaps improve their access to the park. I am not aware of any methods to reduce the air emissions. There are very feww attempts to prevent the release of solid contaminants from bridges. It would be nice to see an attempt made.
    Anyone want to adopt a dog?

  5. #5
    Cyburbian nerudite's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,502
    Hi Milos and welcome to cyburbia. I would second Cardinal's sentiment that 30M Euros is a lot of money that could be put into other programs and initiatives.

    I am just wondering if the bridge scenario has been looked at on a larger level. It appears that you are addressing the specific pollutants of the cars that are going over the bridge at a specific location. But won't the construction of the bridge alleviate traffic congestion, thereby possibly reducing idling and decreasing overall contaminents in an area? I am not an air quality expert, but theoretically I don't see the difference between a bridge or a tunnel as far as air quality impacts, because it will still be the same number of cars and the same amount of pollutants will end up in our air. I would assume that there would be ventilation stacks associated with the tunnel, so if it's going under the recreation area/marina/etc., I would think that the area would still be impacted by the pollutants. I'm not an expert in transportation and infrastructure (especially tunnels!), so hopefully someone here can help you more.

    But if you could provide us with more information (links to studies perhpaps?) maybe we can give you a more informed opinion.

    In any case, it's really interesting to see the kinds of issues that are occuring in your area, so please come back and participate some more!

    Edit: Living for several years near San Francisco, I have grown fond of bridges. Some of my favourite areas to hike and enjoy the scenery have been around the Golden Gate Bridge. I have never really given any thought to the fact that there are thousands of cars streaming by above me, as to me the bridge is a big part of why I like the area. If the proposed bridge is architecturally significant, it could be seen as a landmark for the area. I guess I'm just trying to look at the issue from different points of view.
    Last edited by nerudite; 22 Dec 2004 at 5:43 PM.

  6. #6
         
    Registered
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Serbia
    Posts
    4
    my concern is not just ecological, it's not based strictly on the amount of polutants which will be certainly produced by transportation but also that the image of a bridge, however nice the project it ends up, would also have bad psychological influence to the visitors of the playgrounds, beaches, restaurants and other resources on the river island. I personally wouldn't like to swim or play hoops in the shadows of a bridge even if it's the project of ie Norman Foster.. and I'm sure that the majority of 300 thousands people that every day (which generate almost 300.000 e of income per day), during the summer months visit this island share my opinion and that therefore the bridge will hurt the town's economy by driving away people which spend their money there.



    this is the link to the english article that describes "Ada ciganlia" (name of the river island)
    http://www.belgradetourism.org.yu/en...zeleni_bg/ada/

    this is one of the older maps (about 8 years) of the endangered area . Ada ciganlia is the great green island in the bottom left corner. the bridge will be built near the downstream tip of island.



    there's even a fishing safari complex there
    http://www.adasafari.co.yu/



    I'm wondering and would like the know have the politicians of great cities like Paris, London, New York, Rome, Madrid have ever been tempted to sacrifice similar recreational zones (parks, forests, lakes ...) in order to improve the urban transportation and economy.
    Last edited by milosr; 22 Dec 2004 at 7:05 PM.

  7. #7
    Member
    Registered
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Somerville, Massachusetts
    Posts
    1
    >> I'm wondering and would like the know have the politicians of great cities like Paris, London, New York, Rome, Madrid have ever been tempted to sacrifice >> similar recreational zones (parks, forests, lakes ...) in order to improve the urban transportation and economy. <<

    If you are looking for a city that has sacrificed recreational zones for the sake of transportation, Boston would be an excellent example. Over the past few decades, city planners have built major highways through many of the city's parks, especially alonside rivers (Storrow and Memorial Drives along the Charles River, I-95 along the Mystic River).

    There used to be a large, interconnected park along one river, through which a highway overpass was build. The town now has 30 excess deaths from lung cancer, etc. as a result of the overpass, and the entire area around it is economically depressed.

    As a result of the poor decisions of yesterday, Boston has spent more than 10 billion dollars US trying to reverse its decision to build a central artery (the "Big Dig") and replace it with green space!

    Considering the value and the popularity of the green space, you must preserve it at all costs. Spending the extra money for the tunnel is a major investment in the city--it preserves the health of the people, income from tourism, and is good for property values.

    It is absolutely absurd to build a bridge instead of a tunnel because it will "save money for recreational land elsewhere". This park is in the heart of the city and has a special historical heritage--building another one in the suburbs does nothing for the urban core. That would be the equivalent of building an overpass through New York's central park in order to "save for recreational land" somewhere else.

    Furthermore, building more bridges, highways, etc. can only help traffic congestion to a point. In just about every case in American cities, building highways increases overall traffic. Belgrade should consider investing in public transit improvements instead of new roadways---these cause far less air pollution and are more cost effective.

    America has already sacrificed the health of its citizens and the economic livelihood
    of its cities enough by highway construction. Don't make the same mistake in your city. If you must build a highway, put it in a tunnel.

  8. #8
         
    Registered
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Serbia
    Posts
    4
    thank you very much for you reply. Other replies were also good, but your's special cause it's your first post here, on this forum.

    I know a bit or two about boston's transportation and traffic mainly cause I've seen disovery' channel's show about tunnel under the boston's harbor. It was fascinating to see how it was assembled....

    Thank you once again

  9. #9
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Oct 2004
    Location
    New Orleans, LA
    Posts
    368
    Quote Originally posted by milosr
    the image of a bridge, however nice the project it ends up, would also have bad psychological influence to the visitors of the playgrounds, beaches, restaurants and other resources on the river island.
    And if it's a picturesque and nice bridge? Sure, a concrete pile freeway thing is going to cause problems there but an attractive one conducive to recreation might improve it.
    I personally wouldn't like to swim or play hoops in the shadows of a bridge...and I'm sure that the majority of 300 thousands people that every day.. visit this island share my opinion
    Source is? Or are you just projecting a personal opinion on the public?
    I also have to agree that a tunnel will generate an equal amount of pollution, and the price difference can do a lot of improvement.

  10. #10
         
    Registered
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Serbia
    Posts
    4
    there have been surveys that support my personal opinion

    btw what's more picturesque than the clear sky

  11. #11
    Cyburbian jordanb's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    City of Low Low Wages!
    Posts
    3,236
    People approaching a problem from an economic development perspective (especially if they have a rural background) will often discount the importance of a great park because of the inability to attach a dollar number to the park's value to the community.

    Parkland is not a commodity; you can't just drop some here and pick up some there and still be even. The need for parks is psycoholgical, and great parks are invaluable. They need to be protected at all costs. The fact that this park gets 300,000 visitors from such a small city indicats just how important it is.

    Go under a pretty bridge and you're still... under a bridge (unless it's 200 feet tall, pencil thin, and painted blue). Besides, the fact that they're trying to cheap out of a tunnel suggests how much money they'd be willing to put into making it pretty.

    milosr: Check out Buffalo, New York. They destroyed their park system in order to build expressways and have been in decline ever since. You might also want to look at Jane Jacobs' freeway revolt's sucessful prevention of the destruction of Washington Park by Robert Moses in New York City.

  12. #12
    Cyburbian Rumpy Tunanator's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Intervention
    Posts
    4,475
    Quote Originally posted by jordanb
    milosr: Check out Buffalo, New York. They destroyed their park system in order to build expressways and have been in decline ever since.
    So that's your logic for the city's decline, huh?
    A guy once told me, "Do not have any attachments, do not have anything in your life you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you spot the heat around the corner."


    Neil McCauley (Robert DeNiro): Heat 1995

  13. #13
    Cyburbian jordanb's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    City of Low Low Wages!
    Posts
    3,236
    Well, I think it's part of it. It's one of those livability issues that add up over time. Buffalo has fared worse than most rust-belt metropolises, although they are all experiencing the same underlying economic forces.

    A book Dan recommended to me, High Hopes: The Rise and Decline of Buffalo, New York used the destruction of the parks system and the location of the University of Buffalo as examples of the deplorable planning that hastened the city's demise.

  14. #14
    Cyburbian Rumpy Tunanator's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Intervention
    Posts
    4,475
    The Humbolt Pkwy is the main one I can think of that was destroyed because of the 33 expwy. Its like any other canyon type expwy that isolates and destroys neighborhoods, that you'll also find in many other cities. I can't think of the one in the Bronx that neighbors tried to fight during the RM era. I know the 1-279 cuts right through a historic neighborhood on the northside in Pittsburgh.

    As for the 198 which cuts through Delaware Park, that was a huge mistake that is in the process of being fixed. It still is the highest used park in the city though, even though the expwy cuts it in half.

    Then there's the I-190 which cuts of the waterfront from downtown, but that's another can of worms.

    UB's expansion is another can of worms I won't get into. I've already ranted on that one before.

    Really the changing of the economy is what lead to most of the decline here, along with assbackwards politics that contributed to the forementioned points and other bad decisions.




    BOT: Build the tunnel.
    A guy once told me, "Do not have any attachments, do not have anything in your life you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you spot the heat around the corner."


    Neil McCauley (Robert DeNiro): Heat 1995

  15. #15
    Cyburbian nuovorecord's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    444
    Quote Originally posted by Rumpy Tunanator
    I can't think of the one in the Bronx that neighbors tried to fight during the RM era.
    Cross-Bronx Expressway
    "There's nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what's right with America." - Bill Clinton.

+ Reply to thread

More at Cyburbia

  1. [OMG!] urban areas
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 23
    Last post: 05 Apr 2011, 8:11 PM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last post: 17 Jul 2008, 10:20 PM
  3. Interstates in urban areas
    Transportation Planning
    Replies: 7
    Last post: 12 Apr 2008, 10:56 PM
  4. Urban areas in Mass.
    Cities and Places
    Replies: 24
    Last post: 29 Jan 2006, 7:19 PM
  5. Replies: 6
    Last post: 17 Feb 2005, 11:14 PM