Godwin’s Law holds that, in any Internet debate, one side will eventually compare the other wide with Nazis or Hitler. A corollary to Godwin’s Law is that, as soon as that happens, the side so accused can declare victory and end the debate.
What, then, shall we make of a presentation posted on the Congress for the New Urbanism web site that compares those who want to build roads with Hitler? The presentation was originally given by former Milwaukee mayor and current CNU President John Norquist.
Hitler built bridges, so this bridge must be evil.
We don’t know what narration goes along with the presentation, but it is pretty clearly a diatribe against urban freeways, especially elevated freeways. The presentation compares the cost of replacing the Alaska viaduct — an elevated freeway in downtown Seattle — with another elevated freeway (around $3 billion) vs. a tunnel (close to $6 billion).
Much of the presentation consists of photographs of ugly elevated freeways in various cities, and in some cases what other cities would look like if they put elevated freeways on their waterfronts (e.g., slides 18-19, 20-21, and 22-23).
sample viagra As per Survey in Oct 13, 2016 Men’s Health Org, Texas. Receiving generic levitra becomes a challenge for the people who require this medicine can afford this easily. Another natural plant that acts as an impotence remedy is the Yohimbe tree. viagra no prescription uk It is also buy viagra online required to maintain upbeat libido. The climax comes in slides 50-53. First, Norquist shows a 1930s propaganda poster of the German autobahn. The poster shows a bridge but otherwise a non-elevated freeway. Then he shows a photo of Adolf Hitler standing in front of an autobahn bridge that seems to be under construction.
“Which side are you on?” Norquist asks in slide 52. Slide 53, the last slide in the show, presents the photo of Hitler side-by-side with a photo of a woman who happens to be the heroine of New Urbanism, Jane Jacobs.
This is an example of reductio ad Hitlerum: “Hitler was evil; therefore, anything that Hitler did must be evil.” The examples given by Wikipedia are “owning dogs,” “painting watercolors,” and “building expressways.”
There may be good reasons for not replacing Seattle’s Alaska Viaduct with another elevated waterfront freeway, but Hitler is not one of them. In fact, many elevated structures are quite beautiful. Who, for example, would say that California should have spent twice as much building a tunnel under San Francisco Bay instead of the Golden Gate Bridge? Especially when, as anyone familiar with Boston’s Big Dig knows, tunneling can end up being far more than just twice as expensive as bridges.
Not necessarily ugly.
There are, in fact, engineering companies that specialize in designing beautiful elevated highways and bridges. One elevated tollway in Tampa was expressly designed to be “beautiful and radical”. I hope John Norquist will tone down his presentation in the future and stick to the facts, not ad hominem attacks.
I liked slide 50 of 53, an empty street full of empty bum benches compred to slide 51, a vibrant street full of parked cars from people contibuting to the vibrancy of the area.
Of course, Hitler was into city design and reportidly was redesigning Berlin in his final days in that bunker – sort of like modern city planners.
Thanks
JK
I have noticed what I consider far too much name calling, attributed motives by association, and denigration of opponents in most public forums and especially blogs related to partisan politics. I was trained to be a scientist so this is against my usual way of thinking. It bothers me when Republicans refer to the “democrat party” rather than the “Democratic Party”. It makes me want to call them the “publican party”.
People have different ideas of what is ugly and beautiful, and it depends partly on one’s perspective. At ground level an elevated freeway may look ugly and sound noisy. From 1000 meters above ground it may be interesting and beautiful and quiet. At ground level a train in a subway may be unnoticeable but riding on it may be ugly. I think many bridges are beautiful and the ugliest things related to transport are broken and burned bodies and children bleeding on the street after collisions with vehicles.
My solution to the ugliness of transport crashes, congestion and lack of mobility in dense business districts of cities is grade separation according to weight. Put the trains below ground, cars, trucks, buses and motorcycles at ground level, pedestrians and bikes two stories up (5-6 meters) and one-ton gross vehicle weight monorails three stories up (8-9 meters). For more info on elevated personal monorails Google my name or “Higherway”. The reason the personal monorails go on top is that their weight is spread out along a rail and don’t require as much supporting structure as a walkway where the designers have to assume a load of several people standing per square meter.
Tunnels under cities are much more expensive than tunnels most other places because of all the stuff already there – sewers, building basements and foundations, utilities, unstable soils, water, subways, etc. Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. had problems keeping stuff (such as buildings and streets) from falling into their subway tunnels during construction.
Tad,
Help me out on this one, I often watch the Sunday news shows and more often hear Democrats calling themselves Democrats, is this like the “n” word where only black people can use it?
btw, I prefer to use Republicrat as there really isn’t too much to diferentiate them.
John,
The correct terms are “Republican Party”, with “Republican” an adjective, and “Democratic Party” with “Democratic” an adjective. Members of the parties are “Republicans” and “Democrats”, nouns. Decades ago some Republicans started saying, “Democrat Party” and some in the media and even some Democrats followed their lead, possibly because many like to use shorter words. The shortened form of Republican, “publican”, means tax collector.
To differentiate the parties, follow the money. One party is funded more by loan sharks (financial instituitions), drug pushers (pharmaceutical and tobacco companies), and oil companies. The other is funded more by labor unions. Both are funded by corporations, rich people and other special interest groups. Rich people contribute to government by paying for political campaigns so they won’t have to pay so much in taxes. Corporations pay for political campaigns to reduce their taxes, gain advantages over their competitors and receive special treatment (corporate welfare). Labor unions contribute to political campaigns to gain advantages they haven’t succeeded in obtaining in contract negotiations, such as the OSHA, and to make more work for their members, such as building public works projects.
My father describes it this way:
A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they
came to a homeless person. The Republican gave the homeless person his
business card and told him to come to his business for a job. He then
took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless
person.
The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another
homeless person, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless
person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached
into the Republican’s pocket and got out twenty dollars. He kept $15
for administrative fees and gave the homeless person five.
You can tell at an early age whether a person will be a Democrat or Republican. If your baby is sitting quietly reading the Wall Street Journal, he will grow up to be a Republican. If your baby is screaming, “I want a change!” he will grow up to be a Democrat.
i don’t know what this has to do with transport.
Pingback: Urban Planning and Liberal Fascism » The Antiplanner
Though Mr.O’Toole you are indeed a bigot.
Your reasoning against rail/transit, is no different than the KKK’s reasoning against black people.
“Your reasoning against rail/transit, is no different than the KKK’s reasoning against black people. ”
Wow. Not getting enoguh sex lately, Highwayman?
Now that I’d normally be that flippant but hey, if that’s the level of commentary we’re going to have around here.