How to solve the problem of endless, under-utilized lateral expansion? Convert freeways to farms and build upwards! Left behind in the wake of the past century of unfettered lateral urbanization, the expansive embankments that cradle the American freeway represent one of the greatest untapped spatial fragments of the contemporary built environment. What if, rather than merely lamenting or accepting these non-places as the inevitable detritus of sprawl, these sites could be reclaimed and activated in response to the pressing concerns of our time?
Inter-estates proposes a phased strategy for re-evaluating and repurposing these sites in a scenario of radical transformation that offers new development typologies, unconventional models of finance, and dynamic land use. First, freeway embankments are re-zoned for agricultural use; giving rise to community edible gardening, switchgrass and other forms of bio-fuel production, open space corridors, etc.
Next, the construction of a series of versatile structural pylons accommodates the installation of temporary billboards. Operating like a lamb in wolves’ clothing, revenue generated from the sale of advertising space is in turn invested in future improvements to the site, including retrofitting of the structural pylons to accommodate vertical axis wind turbines. As the advertising campaign is retired, the structural frames of the billboards are left intact as the armatures for future residential uses. Finally, residential development begins to occur vertically along the pylons, which now are retrofitted to accommodate domestic functions.
This is quite inventive and it is refreshing to see that the financial aspect was considered. However, anyone who has been roadside at the interstate knows that it is not a good place to be. Who would live above with all the noise and exhaust (I can see a lawsuit coming with the second hand exhaust), prisoners?
The wide R/W is there for safety (cars exiting the road accidently) and buffer. Any farmer will tell you that it can’t be farmed productively (long, narrow, undulating). How would you get the farm equipment there and produce out (not to mention workers)? Where would the residents park?
This is a romantic idea, but…
The heart of this idea is sound. Developing interstate land is the most viable option. By concentrating suburbia along the active freeway, you increase the efficiency of community. People can walk to mass transit that is reclaiming the interstate median. Major power lines and other utilities can be beautifully hidden within the median as well.
The previous commenter has erred on several points. Noise is amplified in the direction of travel; elevating is a good way to escape the noise. The view and noise of the freeway is obscured by the balcony wall. From above, the wind carries exhaust away.Farm equipment just like mowing equipment can handle the existing grades.
Like most plans, this one will be conventionalized, utilizing condos as the major construct. A short ten story building can attractively condense ten rows of houses (each taking up at least 300 x 300 foot lots) with a net result of reclaiming a square mile of sluburbia for every mile of interstate. The ground floor can be zoned commercial, effectively creating a row of shops like a mall. A tree lined parkway offers local parking and cruising, you know we love to show off our cars. Neighboring lots can be zoned “park and ride” and industrial, putting jobs within walking distance of the residential towers. The condo will still have wind power and farming on the roof and inside, as well as transparent solar cell film on the glass. If the condo used incinolets, there would be no black water to treat. Greywater will be easier to treat or simply repurpose.
The view of the resurrected land would be spectacular without all those houses cluttering it up. As for traffic noise, many interstates are using walls already to shut it out. Lets finish the job and put a building on that wall. This is what the working class needs! Apartments don’t cut it, they are too expensive and far removed from community spaces.
Danny,
Thought this concept was quite inventive and showed a lot of great ideas. Pertaining to the nay sayers that claim the land can’t be readily converted to farming, I say phooey. You can always terrace and even automate planting and harvesting along the interstate corridor. I wasn’t sure how to vote for your entry as it wasn’t clear other than to comment positively.
Keep up the great work!
Jeff
Wouldn’t it be cheaper just to bulldoze more greenfields for agriculture and housing. This goes against market logic. Not to mention ground level ozone and pollution.
This has to be a western idea, the salting/cindering/and awful chemical sprays used to de-ice roads where it snows kills most vegetation next time you take a road trip, get out and look at the side of a highway nothing but hardy weeds. the soil totally destroyed of nutrients. drive through I-80 in Ohio, there is a large valley off either side of the highway before it hits the farm soil that back up to the highway to dissipate the excess salt and chemicals used to de-ice and in the asphalt and creation of cement, plus filling potholes, oils that drop off cars and when it rains brings these and other toxins to the surface then runs off the side of the road. i like your idea, there is a lot of land that can be used better than today, i just highly disagree with planting food for human consumption in a chemical zone. how else can this land truly be repurposed?
LOL O2 you have stated the issue from the common viewpoint, which is factually backwards.
It is cheaper to bulldoze the scenery and houses in cheap rural areas. Building roads, infrastructure, transit systems, utility lines is not.
Annexing newly formed suburban regions adds to the tax base on a short term. Long term the added infrastructure, adding new schools, arranging transportation to schools… etc, is increasingly more expensive the further out you go.
The problem with tract housing is that it eschews all responsibilities of community to afford you a barebones non-community in the guise that it is affordable living. As our wilderness diminishes, we will find that the price is far higher than the dollars we thought we shaved (and paid back in higher taxes).
The current market is responding. We blew up the bubble.
As for OZONE, which is created from electrical transformers, it was actually a cause of concern for the DEPLETION from our atmosphere, as it protects us from radiation from the sun. Many common air purifiers use ozone to clean dust from the air. I don’t understand why you’re concerned about ozone, it smells like rain coming. If it comes out of wind generators, I would imagine the effect would be to purify localized car pollution. Cars mostly create CO2, a greenhouse gas that is implemented in the global climate change we are seeing. That pollution smells of oil and fuel. Since you claim it is ground level, why worry? These houses are elevated.
I’m worried about who might be eating these crops. I’m also worried about who’s working them and their health. I’m mostly worried about water and how contaminated it will be since freeways are both notoriously filthy and notoriously evaporative (the high winds). I do really like your sheep in wolves’ clothing concept, the whole project flows cohesively along the time line and helps eliminate some of the romance and fantasy inherent in such a project. I suppose a latter stage would show bazillion dollar condos hanging gracefully over acres of crops, a train link, and a two lane highway. Could we live with that? Rows of apartments above shops slammed against the original crop/bank all staring at distinct and well spaced condos. I could live with that if the condos were nice enough to look at. I don’t think you’ll have to plan for too much infrastructure considering these are probably bachelor condos or the kids go to private schools. (But, taking into consideration who lives there is never really a part of the city’s decision process). Still, as spaced as they are, they might not really be additive or legally burdensome to any given population, and would not require additional resources. I do think the units would make nice schools and library’s(i.e. computer rooms) themselves. Navigating firetrucks could be challenging.
Hi Dan,
My opinion may be bit biased, yet your creative mind is truly is amazing. Continue to look outside the conformity of the norm , and surely your ideas will become world changing events. I am so very proud of your work.
Dad
The presentation of this project is grand! I like the intention behind this idea. The expansive lateral space IS massive and holds real potential. I like the advertising component. I think that govt’s should take advantage of advertising opportunities. I personally see nothing wrong with selling a street name to a company. Coca Cola Drive. Microsoft Way etc.
I hear many people these days talking about urban farming. My nona grew vegetables in her backyard into her 80’s. I’ve seen urban plots set up around railroad tracks in Vancouver in a similar fashion as the article described. And ideas for multi-level urban farm structures. But the fact is that farming is a LOW density use. I think the trouble with our existing cities is that they incorporate too many low density uses. Low density uses CREATE the need for vehicles and the infrastructure that support them. Low density industrial areas and railroad switching yards impede pedestrians and public transportation as much as the design of low density neighbourhoods and cul-de-sacs. For this reason I think that this space would be better utilized if it incorporated higher density uses. As mentioned above, 10 acres can feed about 40 people. That’s about 15 families(?). How many families could live in an apartment building on those same 10 acres? Toronto has many office & residential towers built adjacent to freeways like this.
Put another way: If housing for 200 families are located on the periphery of a city, that means 200 families will likely have to commute each day into the city for work, school, shopping etc. This will either be in automobiles or (hopefully) public transit. On the other hand, food produced on a farm on the periphery could be transported to the city in ONE truck each day. In this instance traffic is reduced 100 fold or more by pushing lower density uses further out and placing higher density uses in the middle of it all. Design all or most of a city in this manner could significantly reduce the overall need for lateral highway space in the first place and significantly increase the viability of public transit.
During the industrial revolution factories needed to be located within walking distance of workers. When the railroads came along, they were also built in the middle of it all. Now that factories require significantly less manpower and transportation makes communting easier, there’s no sense in carving up vast areas of a city with low density industrial uses and rail lines that would be better suited to the periphery. 1000 people driving outwards instead of 10,000 people driving inwards.
Looking at this project I support re-envisioning underutilized and left over space which is common around all freeways. I would question or rather would like to know how the farming spaces would change through different climates and if those changes can somehow reflect or influence the spaces built for people to inhabit. I would encourage further research about water run off from the highways, maximizing wind patterns from freeways and time of day, solar energy and heat radiation from the highways. The infrastructure is a conduit of several natural resources, all which could reinforce farming and space design. Kudos. Danny.
amazing
Again with the Hanging / Elevated/ House/ Air / thing…
I like its creativity and imagination, I would never live there unless I had to, and I think most of the people who have immediate access to schools, swiming, bike trails, health clubs, soccer feilds, etc., you know, all those features people live in the suburbs for in the first place…
It is a good idea to use the ROW as suggested however, lots of potential there.
I love this idea – the space lining freeways certainly is begging to be reclaimed, and I like how you propose a comprehensive, staged approach to achieving that goal – especially the way you design around the fact that interstates are not going to magically disappear with the wave of a green wand.
My only concern would be the environmental factors. I’ve lived on the side of a busy highway before, and it’s not a nice place to be. Wayne Scott gave a good explanation of how to escape the noise, but I’d still be worried about toxicity – exhaust fumes, diesel soot, oily water runoff, and (as someone else mentioned) de-icing measures in certain places. Even if one could construct livable buildings on the roadside, I would worry about the safety of food growing in the ground.
Still, a great start, and a nice vision for the direction to take things.
i don’t think the proposed execution is workable, for some of the reasons outlined by commenters above. however the way you are thinking about development here is very compelling.
the most interesting part of this thought experiment [to me] is the idea of reducing initial investment and having the project/structure pay for itself over time. it raises many questions, like how to prevent the project from stalling out at the billboard stage, but it is a constructively provocative idea for structuring growth that deserves more thought and discussion.
Are these people living right next to the highway then not allowed to have cars? You’ve not provided them even a slender walkway to reach the train, nor a train station to board at. And if they are allowed cars then you’ll be wiping out your extra space with entrance and exit ramps, and parking lots as someone above mentioned. You’re also creating a lot of shade for your crops by building housing over top of them.
I agree. Great concept and continue thinking “outside the box” ,as far as the comment regarding ” street oily water runoff” this would bring your “eco-curb” design concept into play. Over all.. great concept which would be a positive paradym shift for our society.
This is a great idea. I often think about the wasted space on the sides of roadways and how it could be used for so many things. This is well thought out and presented. Your dad should be proud. In the future exhaust will be less of a problem so I don’t think people will have a problem living above the road. Good luck! Brewer Caldwell
I like it – It’s very “pop”.
I am a little prejudiced because I know Danny but that aside he has a great idea and I often think that the roadways could be utilized better! It is very inventive and you always are thinking of creative ways to improve our society!
GGOD LUCK & KEEP UP THE GGOD WORK!!!, PAT K.
SORRY DANNY- I MEANT GOOD LUCK & KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!,PAT BUT ACTUALLY IF GOD COMES INTO PLAY I’D APPRECIATE HIS HELP ALSO!!
Great idea for a lot of locations in the US….except Tornado Alley & Hurricane prone zones.
A wind tower is a dangerous place to hang a house (think of blade failure), and the houses would increase air tubulence around the towers, reducing the power output and life span of the turbines. Economically viable wind power requires steady winds: you cannot plop wind turbines anywhere you like and expect them to pay off.
The soil is likely full of heavy metals leached from microscopic tire particles.
The linear design would discourage walking. The housing density is so low as to make mass transit inefficient.
Sorry, “turbulence”, not “tubulence”.
Great idea, especially the multi-use multi-year concept. Transportation would be taken care of by subways built when the foundations for the towers go in. I think we can conquer the polution issues if we set our minds to it. Look at Chevrolet 243 mpg that should not create to much polution. Eventually all cars will be electric or solar, there you go no more polution!
[...] words are from Inter Estates: Reclaimed freeways Turned Farms, which is one of 20 finalists in Reburbia: A Suburban Design Competition over at [...]
Wayne@6, The EPA has found that (ground level) ozone is bad for people’s lung function.
why is it that everyone thinks that crops would thrive in car exhaust run off zones? you’re graphics are awesome! but you should take these crops and put them in an open lush field or something. if we have these massive automobile networks we need some permeable earth, possibly call it a right of way, to take the brunt of the crap our cars produce.