Proposal to revamp the 134 Freeway: Environmentally friendly solution or ‘utopian artistic fluff’?

By Agnus Dei Farrant

July 11, 2016 5:57 PM PT

Can L.A. build an environmentally friendly freeway? Or is the idea merely “utopian artistic fluff”?

Times architecture critic Christopher Hawthorne recently wrote about a proposal by Michael Maltzan Architecture that reimagined the 134 Freeway as it crosses the Arroyo Seco by Pasadena. Maltzan’s design wrapped the freeway bridge inside a sort of tunnel, which Maltzan described as a “new infrastructural overlay” that would absorb traffic noise, reduce air pollution, capture storm water and produce enough electricity annually to power 600 homes.

The proposal caused some readers to cheer and others to balk. Here are some of the reactions:

“I like this idea, provided the rainwater capture plan would work even in dry years. Not sure if the carbon capture technology would really be necessary if the switch to electric vehicles is accelerated as it needs to be. Electric vehicles would allow us to cover many freeways with parkland and, as they say, reconnect many neighborhoods.”
“It’s possible but how about improving the connections between existing bus and train systems too so people don’t have to use cars as much?”
“Please. Utopian artistic fluff. I do not agree that current nature of the 2 Freeway is one of the ‘bigger challenges facing contemporary Southern California.’ It works just fine. Also, how about an engineering and financial analysis that quantifies the benefits and costs in terms of taxpayer dollars?”
“Great ideas, but too bad voters will not think likewise.”
“They can’t even keep the streets clean and you’re telling me there would be money to maintain the greenscape and the solar panels? In five years this thing would need to be replaced. $1 million per year cost savings from the solar is sort of laughable. This thing would bleed money easily. Not to mention the tens of millions it cost to build it would be a complete wash despite any ‘savings.’”
“What an incredible idea. We need more of this kind of thinking, and it needs to be done now, and avoid the quibblers and naysayers. How much would it cost? Let’s get this going.”