Hacker News Reader

Comment by gipp | Hacker News Reader

I'm about as strident an advocate for better walkability in America as you'll find, but this is still a silly post. The OP is not about the question of why one would build pedestrian bridges in general, but why this particular one exists in this particular spot, when it is clearly of no value to anyone and has no obvious rhyme or reason to its positioning, having no connection to any other pedestrian infrastructure. Which you know perfectly well if you read any of the post.

As far as your latter paragraph goes... Read any other comment thread vaguely related to this topic, I suppose. That exact conversation is had on this site at least weekly.

View on HN

The post buried the lede that the pedestrian bridge was at the end of a long avenue that was cut off by an Interstate. It continued the avenue for pedestrians.

While I enjoyed the shoe-leather reflected by the piece, I disagree with the central assumption that reconnecting neighborhood roads cut by Interstates should be an exception rather than a rule. In my city several areas are oddly isolated from one another due to highways that were a cohesive community fabric before. It's always an insult to the local neighborhood to seal places off and I'm saddened conventional wisdom today would require a special exception to heal the cut.

>I disagree with the central assumption that reconnecting neighborhood roads cut by Interstates should be an exception rather than a rule.

Author here: That was not meant to be my central assumption! Sorry if it came across that way. I only called it out to note that the lack of walkability in the area made this bridge stand out. I wish that area (and other areas in my community) were more walkable and bike-friendly.

I only called it out to note that the lack of walkability in the area made this bridge stand out.

As someone who thoroughly enjoyed the piece, this smells like ignoring the obvious answer to the question. The place lacks it. The bridge provides more of it. Mystery solved, no? Need meets provision!

I felt the same way when I read about the Grainger employees complaining about the litter — which is a clue, evidence of people walking there — but you didn't follow that thread.

If you were assuming the bridge was to provide walkability then the next question would be “why connect these two points instead of somewhere more populous?”

That would lead you right down the same search as the author.

You're in luck. There are about a billion instances of "why isn't my urban planning optimal?" out there for you to dig into.

To plow an interstate through a city, first seize some land through imminent domain. Better to seize it from the poor because they can't afford any legal struggle.

This effectively splits poor neighborhoods.

And that can be used as a tool to move or remove those populations.

Combine this with redlining for extra "fun" for anybody black.

https://www.history.com/news/interstate-highway-system-infra...

> And that was by design, she noted. Policymakers and planners saw highway construction as a convenient way to raze neighborhoods considered undesirable or blighted.

With absolutely no citation, quote, or reference, these types of statements are pure propaganda.

That propaganda is found right at the top of this piece, so we can know exactly what to expect from that supposed journalist.

Garbage. No facts, just hate.

It's entirely true and if you go back and read old meeting minutes they will constantly just say they're doing something just to get rid of the black neighborhood.

I'm sorry to inform you that Americans before 1960 were sometimes racist.

https://www.amazon.com/Color-Law-Forgotten-Government-Segreg...

Generally speaking other countries don't drive highways through the middle of cities nearly as much. It's still happening here - in Seattle and Bakersfield - maybe not for that reason, but still not for a good one, only because we've set a metric that cars need to go as fast as possible and when they don't the solution is more lanes.

Well, yes, the specific question is not exactly useful to the vast majority of the people of the world, but I think that's a particularly harsh criteria.

And, I think that's not really the point of the article. The most useful thing came at the turning point, the advice that allowed the solution to be found - "...stop looking at old documents: 'no one writes down the real reason for infrastructure projects.' She said I needed to look for people in power."

I think that's pretty good advice, and has obvious extensions that makes it pretty useful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com