4Cities Master in Urban Studies THESIS COMMITTEE Prof. Dr. Mathieu Van Criekingen, Thesis Advisor, Université Libre de Bruxelles Prof. Dr. Diego Barrado, Second Reader, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid The Production of Urban Highways in the 21st Century Four European Examples in a Global Context Best Practices viewed by different actors in Antwerp, Madrid, Genoa and Rome Ghent 29-03-2013: exhibition of flyover redesign in Sint Lukas Architectuur (own picture) Antoine Struelens 1 September, 2013 1 Abstract During the past few years there have been many discussions on abandoned urban railway lines. They often changed from derelict places to vibrant parks, now reconnecting instead of dividing neighbourhoods – as demonstrated by Paris’ Promenade Plantée and New York’s High Line. These developments inspired new projects worldwide or locally: like Rotterdam’s Hofpleinlijn, or Queens’ plan for a high line following Manhattan. The attention now shifts to reusing urban highways – which also grow older. More and more actors are arguing we need 21st century infrastructure in order to overcome the barrier effect caused by 20th century infrastructure – which has often been dominated by the car. This shift from public transport driven urban planning to car-centered city development changed the aspect of many cities. The recently regained attention for more livable cities and a more balanced modal split might also lead to a big city metamorphosis. However, the debate around urban highways and their production (be it different forms of reuse, extension or the combination of both) is problematic. This paper discusses this topic through best practices used by the different stakeholders during their interviews and in the literature. It compares a realized project with three discussed ones. The realized project is Madrid Río, a park created on the Manzanares river banks after putting the M-30 ring road underground during the MadridCalle30 project. The first project in discussion is the debate around the closure of the existing R1 ring road in Antwerp – and the different alternatives proposed to it - which have been very polemic and continue to be a delicate discussion subject in Antwerp and Flanders in general. The third and fourth cases are the will of Genoa’s mayor to transform the Sopraelevata into an elevated promenade, and the initiative by Rome’s former 3rd municipality mayor to do the same with the Sopraelevata di San Lorenzo. This paper illustrates the cross-fertilization of ideas by putting these four cases in a global context and emphasizes their importance in shaping tomorrow’s cities. I analyse the different debates and stakeholders through the best practices they mention – generally through literature and also in the interviews for the Antwerp and Madrid cases. This study also opens the way for more comparative studies on the subject of urban highways in general or on the four analysed cases in particular. Antoine Struelens 4Cities, 2011-2013 2 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my promotor, Professor Dr. Mathieu Van Criekingen, for guiding me through this research and helping me to formulate an adequate research question, as well as my second reader Professor Dr. Diego Barrado, for giving me better insights for the Madrid case, as well as Professor Dr. Walter Matznetter who helped me during the Vienna term. Of course I’m also thanking my parents for their patience and encouragements during this two years master. I would also like to applaud all the actors who accepted to be interviewed and to share their views on the subject: without them this thesis wouldn’t have been possible either. Finally, the 4Cities’ team spirit was an encouragement on its own. 3 Table of contents I Urban Highways in Context 6 I.1 Introduction. History of Urban Highways 6 I.2 Evolution in the Research: from Elevated Urban Rail- and Highways to Ring Roads 11 I.3 Urban Highway : Definition and Terminology 12 I.4 Aim of the Research. Why Urban Highways? Why Best Practices? 14 I.5 Auto-mobility Regimes and Implicit Car Thinking 19 I.6 Conclusion 22 II Research Question and Methodology : research question, method, sub-debates, structuring of the thesis 27 III Best Practices 28 III.1 The Disappearing Traffic Mystery 28 III.2 Producing vs Recycling Urban Highway Infrastructure 29 III.3 4Cities Highways: Brussels, Vienna, Copenhagen, Madrid 32 III.4 Resisting Urban Highways 32 III.5 The Economical Cost and Social Impact of Urban Highways 35 III.6 The Tear-down Movement 36 III.7 Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans. Vitoria-Gasteiz 39 III.8 Worst Practices: Copenhagen, Berlin and Prague 41 III.9 UMPs: Urban Mega Projects 42 III.10 Possibilities for Further Research 45 4 IV The Cases 46 IV.1 Relevance and Comparability of Antwerp, Madrid, Genoa and Rome 46 IV.2 Introducing the Cases 47 IV.3 The Interviews 57 IV.4 Analysis of the Cases 61 V Conclusion 78 VI Notes 80 VII Bibliography 80 Appendix : Interviews 5 “They are part structure and part earthwork, occupying a formal position between architecture and landscape.” (Tatom, 2006) I. Urban Highways in Context “The introduction of railroads into cities was associated with butchering up urban spaces, chocking off existing routes of circulation, taking over recreational areas including cutting off access to the waterfront. Just at the time when some cities were beginning to grapple with these issues, highways were beginning to be introduced, bringing the same problems but in an amplified form.” (Mumford, 1963) I.1 Introduction – History of Urban Highways “In recent years, American and European cities have debated on reusing derelict urban railway lines. These railway lines are often being reused by public transport – the U6 metro line in Vienna; or transformed into parks – the Promenade Plantée in Paris or the High Line in New York. In some cases – like with the Petite Ceinture in Paris, there is a competition between those possible public transport and green space re- uses.” (Struelens, 2012) This competition between possible uses is also present in the urban highway debate. Even though reused urban railways are often put forward as “best practice” examples for redeveloping or re-using (parts of) the urban highway infrastructure, there are important differences between both infrastructure types. The main difference is that urban highways, as they are more recent, are still used very often, while many urban railways used for freight transport have been abandoned. As they are often less derelict, there is a smaller incentive to reuse them – if there aren’t alternatives provided for guiding the (car) traffic in another way. On the other hand, train beds, and especially elevated train viaducts, because of their ancientness are considered as more architecturally valuable than the more modern elevated or entrenched highways. So, once highways become unusable they are more likely to be dismantled than train roads. This attitude is however slowly changing because elevated urban highways are more and more seen as being part of a city’s history and offering the possibility for panoramic views on that same city. Other possibilities are the reuse of some of the highway’s structural elements into the new, or renewed infrastructure, or the reallocation of highway space from the car to other uses like public transport (rail, bus or BRT corridors), walking and cycling. This reallocation of space and shift of uses can mean that the infrastructure can function for the city in a more optimal way; preventing expensive maintenance, new infrastructure, or demolition. A lot of especially elevated urban highways 6 grow old and see their maintenance cost explode; this, combined with the costs for demolishing them in times of economic crisis, explains that reuse is explored for an ever bigger number of them. After having introduced the technical specificities of urban highways, we shall now put the topic in a broader urban context. The discussion of what to do with highways is embedded in the regained emphasis on quality of life in cities, the plans to foster soft mobility and the growing ecological consciousness. This debate was recently boosted by the publication: “The Life and Death of Urban Highways” (EMBARQ, 2012). During the 1950s and up to the 1970s a lot of urban highways were created throughout Europe and North America. Thanks to public protests and policy changes, not all of them were constructed. Most of the ones that do exist are old, have high maintenance costs and are often looked at as urban scars dividing neighbourhoods. Until today the most likely is that elevated motorways in European and North American cities will be demolished or replaced by a tunnel. We will explore this debate and different possibilities offered by urban highways by analysing four case studies: the M-30 in Madrid; the debate around closing the Ring Road in Antwerp, meaning an extension of the urban highway infrastructure – but at the same time maybe the tunnelling or demolishment of big or small parts of the Ring road and the creation of a boulevard and park inspired by Madrid or the local context and a high line on the Merksem Road Viaduct which still faces destruction if the official plans by the Flemish Government are implemented; the project in Genoa to transform the Sopraelevata into a promenade – an Italian high line, linking waterfront and city centre; and the will of Rome’s 2nd (previously 3rd) district mayor and the “Amici del Mostro” (Friends of the Monster) citizen group to initiate the same process for the Sopraelevata di San Lorenzo. One of the main points introduced here is that urban highways must not always be: 1. maintained for vehicle traffic 2. demolished and replaced by an urban boulevard 3. tunnelled. They can also be recycled for new uses.