Asheville – Major new highway construction necessitates the acquisition of property. Since no one wants to be told when to relocate, those opposed to highways—especially those unable to identify endangered species in their paths—often amplify the plight of the displaced.
Conversely, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has faced criticism for gross overbuilding since the planning of the I-26 expansion began. The John Locke Foundation has been one of the most vocal critics. As a libertarian think tank, they define the government’s proper role in transportation as facilitating people’s travel rather than social-engineering them into limited, albeit greener, options.
As a result, residents in Asheville continue to idle on certain well-known stretches of I-26, releasing noxious fumes, which spill over onto local routes during rush hour.
After significant delays, the NCDOT is nearly ready to begin construction. They announced that the I-26 Connector Project Aesthetics Committee will meet on Thursdays through June 18, with the Juneteenth meeting rescheduled for one day earlier. Members of the public are invited to attend.
Opposing this progress are individuals who participated in the original Asheville aesthetics committee, formed in 2006 when the American Institute of Architects established the Asheville Design Center (ADC). Seeking community input, they developed Alternative 4B, which minimized property takings and notably transformed west Patton Avenue into a walkable boulevard.
During the May 13 Asheville City Council meeting, attendees argued that the NCDOT, after adopting a somewhat modified version of Alternative 4B, effectively abandoned it. A major complaint centers on the decision to route the highway over the ADC’s boulevard instead of beneath it. Plans for this change were not made public until earlier this year, with the NCDOT asserting that secrecy was necessary during contract negotiations. This decision was made to save time and money, as building beneath the boulevard would require relocating utility lines and other adjustments.
Another issue is that the new route runs through a Black neighborhood where many residents were relocated after previous highway construction. Allowing history to repeat itself does not align with local governments’ commitments to pay reparations.
William Warner, a resident of Courtland Place in Montford, stated that the new plan calls for the demolition of two to four homes in his neighborhood. He added that other homes would lose value due to their proximity to the Interstate. Appealing to the council, he described the typical homeowner as youthful, just starting their lives, and voting progressively.
“I think it’s a very bad plan; the flyover especially,” Warner concluded, assuring the council that they would soon hear about the problems with the plan if they hadn’t already. “It is a far worse plan than we were left with in 2018.”
Joe Minicozzi, a cofounder of the ADC, expressed that he has “worked on the I-26 project – way too long in my life.” He presented documentation to the council reminding them that over 500 people had contributed to designing Alternative 4B. He noted that the NCDOT had agreed to run the Interstate below Patton Avenue and led the public to believe it would not incur additional costs; even the chamber of commerce supported the ADC’s design.
He reviewed laws and ordinances he believed the DOT was violating by overriding Alternative 4B. Showing a photograph, he stated that the reasons the DOT considered it more aesthetically pleasing to place the Interstate over the boulevard were: “We get to choose the color of the beam, and they’re going to put a little city logo on the end of this thing right there.”
He then elicited laughter when he attempted to create an analogy about trusting engineers—rather than a multidisciplinary team—with aesthetics. Displaying another photo, he likened it to putting a toilet in a sofa: very practical.