Though this story quotes someone who lives in New York, not Louisville, it’s a pretty solid look (and the quotes relevant) at how the rest of the nation views Louisville’s backward highway/bridges plan:
Louisville, Kentucky, is, by all accounts, a city with a lot of potential. An old river city, it has a wealth of beautiful, historic architecture. It’s mid-sized, but large enough to have some good urban amenities. It’s affordable, with a downtown waterfront and some unique cultural charms. As the New York Times said in its article about the city earlier this week, “Louisville has good bones.”
But, regrettably, Louisville seems to be on the verge of taking a giant step backward.
-SNIP-
“If you say anything against the highway you’re almost put on a blacklist,” said Klayko. “It’s been difficult for people to speak against the project.”
-SNIP-
What a lot of people don’t realize, and what both project sponsors and opponents did a poor job communicating, was exactly how disruptive this new roadway will be to the downtown.
How many times can Louisville and the corrupt Ohio River Bridges Debacle be laughed off the state this week?
7 responses so far ↓
1 lateshiftatthezoo // Oct 1, 2012 at 2:18 pm
“If you say anything against the highway you’re almost put on a blacklist,”
Amen to that statement. the powers to be in Louisville can’t stand anyone to question them.
2 jake // Oct 1, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Almost = definitely put on a blacklist.
3 Jtt // Oct 1, 2012 at 3:11 pm
What a lot of folks don’t realize is that the waterfront wasn’t virgin before 64 – the route tracks almost exactly with the elevated railway that went from the old K&I bridge through downtown. Yes, we had an “el” for quite some time, which elevated platforms about every 2 blocks.
4 cherron // Oct 1, 2012 at 10:41 pm
talk about being blacklisted…when i worked for metro econ dev 2007-09, some national group (maybe the APA) posted a list of the 10 bad mega transportation projects and of course the ORBP was on it. i circulated the article to my colleagues and was chastised for it. i was told i didn’t want it perceived that i didn’t agree with the project or even worse had an opinion about it that i was sharing. i was eventually laid off i think because i had an opinion and didn’t mind sharing
5 cherron // Oct 1, 2012 at 10:43 pm
“10 worst” lol
6 stunoland // Oct 5, 2012 at 9:58 pm
The priorities represented in the ORBP are in direct contrast to the conventional wisdom among urban planners economic developmental experts and today’s highway engineers. Simply put the downtown portion of this project is the biggest urban planning mistake of the 21st century. Every person I have spoken with in UofL’s urban planning dept. expressed their disgust with this regressive project but admitted fear of speaking publicly about this debacle. Multiple professors explained the unofficial gag order sent down from the school’s administration and the inability to compete for city grants if they were to rock the boat. Students expressed trepidation about publicly criticizing this impending disaster for fear of being blacklisted from our local planning department. In possibility city, when it comes to the incredibly regressive and backwards ORBP, there is not much academic freedom or critical thinking .
7 stunoland // Oct 5, 2012 at 10:15 pm
@Jtt. Yes Louisville’s waterfront has long been home to infrastructure that prioritized the movements of goods and services over the quality of place. In the 20th century that was a completely logical economic development strategy. In the 21st century service based economy the ability to attract and retain quality workers and visitors is a more significant priority. For a city like Louisville logistics and manufacturing will still play a significant role but those industries have logically migrated to the ring roads. For a city who’s historical heart and raison d’etre is the riverfront, the presence of outdated, disruptive and unmarketable infrastructure will eliminate the possibility Louisville building a vibrant, diverse and growing economy.
Leave a Comment