What If New York City Built the Lower Manhattan Expressway?

The Actual History

The Lower Manhattan Expressway (LOMEX) was one of the most controversial never-built highways in American history. First proposed in 1929, the expressway became a serious project in the 1940s under the direction of New York's powerful "master builder," Robert Moses. The plan called for a ten-lane elevated highway crossing Lower Manhattan from east to west, connecting the Holland Tunnel to the Manhattan and Williamsburg Bridges. The proposed route would have cut directly through what are now vibrant neighborhoods including SoHo, Little Italy, and Chinatown.

By the late 1950s, Moses had secured funding and political support for the project. The Federal Highway Act of 1956, which dedicated billions to interstate highway construction, provided the perfect financial backing. Moses, who had already constructed numerous highways, bridges, and parks throughout New York, wielded unprecedented power as the city's Construction Coordinator and head of the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority. The expressway was designated as Interstate 78 and included in official city plans.

The project would have required the demolition of 416 buildings and the displacement of approximately 2,200 families and 800 businesses along the 1.5-mile corridor. Moses, characteristically unsentimental about such displacement, famously remarked that when "you operate in an overbuilt metropolis, you have to hack your way with a meat ax."

Opposition to the expressway began to coalesce in the early 1960s, led most prominently by urban activist Jane Jacobs. As chair of the Joint Committee to Stop the Lower Manhattan Expressway, Jacobs organized community resistance, arguing that the project would destroy vibrant neighborhoods and the human-scale urban fabric that made these areas thrive. Her influential 1961 book, "The Death and Life of Great American Cities," directly challenged the urban renewal philosophy that Moses championed and provided intellectual ammunition against highway-centered urban planning.

The battle over LOMEX became a pivotal moment in urban planning history. Mayor Robert F. Wagner initially supported the project but later wavered in the face of growing opposition. In 1962, he suspended the expressway plan. While Moses attempted to revive it several times, the project faced increasing resistance. Finally, in 1971, Governor Nelson Rockefeller and Mayor John Lindsay officially canceled the project.

The defeat of the Lower Manhattan Expressway marked a profound shift in urban planning approaches in America. It signaled the beginning of the end of the era of urban highway building and the declining influence of Robert Moses. The neighborhoods that would have been demolished—particularly SoHo—instead underwent revitalization and gentrification, transforming from manufacturing districts into some of New York's most desirable areas.

The LOMEX battle became emblematic of a larger conflict between top-down planning and community-based approaches, between automobile-centered development and human-scaled urban environments. Jane Jacobs' victory over Robert Moses has been immortalized in urban planning literature and remains a powerful symbol of grassroots activism successfully challenging institutional power.

The Point of Divergence

What if the Lower Manhattan Expressway had actually been built? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where Robert Moses' vision for a cross-Manhattan highway overcame the opposition led by Jane Jacobs and local communities, resulting in the construction of the massive infrastructure project that would have permanently altered Manhattan's urban fabric.

Several plausible paths could have led to this divergence:

First, the timing of opposition might have been different. If Jane Jacobs had not moved to New York from Scranton, Pennsylvania in 1934, or if she hadn't settled in Greenwich Village and become invested in its preservation, the opposition might have lacked its most effective and articulate leader. Without Jacobs' organizing efforts and her intellectual framework challenging Moses' approach, community resistance might have been more fragmented and less effective.

Alternatively, political winds might have shifted differently. Mayor Robert F. Wagner suspended the project in 1962, but in our alternate timeline, he could have maintained his support despite the growing controversy. Perhaps Moses, known for his political maneuvering, could have secured stronger backing from state officials or offered more compelling compromises that placated enough opposition to move forward.

The economic context could also have played a role. If New York City's fiscal situation had been stronger in the 1960s, or if federal highway funding had been even more generous, the financial incentives might have overcome local resistance. Moses was notorious for starting projects that became too costly to abandon; getting bulldozers on the ground earlier might have created unstoppable momentum.

Finally, the legal landscape could have been different. In our actual timeline, evolving environmental regulations and requirements for community input created procedural hurdles for large infrastructure projects. If these legal protections had developed more slowly, Moses might have faced fewer procedural obstacles.

In this alternate timeline, we'll examine a scenario where, despite vocal opposition, Robert Moses secures final approval for the Lower Manhattan Expressway in 1962, with construction beginning in 1963 and the highway opening to traffic in 1971, creating a vastly different Lower Manhattan and potentially altering the trajectory of urban planning throughout America.

Immediate Aftermath

Destruction and Construction (1963-1971)

The immediate impact of the LOMEX approval was the commencement of what opponents called "Moses' meat ax" through Lower Manhattan. Within months of the final approvals in 1962, eviction notices were sent to thousands of residents and businesses along the corridor. Despite protests and legal challenges, demolition began in earnest in early 1963, creating a visible wound through neighborhoods like SoHo and Little Italy.

The construction process was typically Moses—bold, efficient, and unyielding. The project followed the standard urban renewal pattern of the era: condemnation, demolition, displacement, and construction. By mid-1964, a wide swath of Manhattan between Broome and Spring Streets was reduced to rubble, with both historic cast-iron buildings and tenements torn down to make way for the elevated expressway.

Displacement and Community Impact

The human cost was immediate and substantial. Approximately 2,200 families were displaced, with most receiving minimal relocation assistance. The compensation offered to property owners was frequently below market value, a common practice in urban renewal projects of the era. Many of the affected residents were from working-class and immigrant communities with limited political power to resist.

Small businesses suffered particularly harsh consequences. About 800 businesses—many of them small manufacturers, artisans, and family-owned shops that had operated for generations—were forced to close or relocate. The unique ecosystem of light manufacturing in SoHo was largely destroyed, as the specialized businesses that had clustered there couldn't afford to relocate as a community.

Chinese businesses along the eastern portion of the expressway route faced severe disruption, fracturing parts of Chinatown and accelerating demographic shifts already underway in the neighborhood. Little Italy, already shrinking, lost several blocks to the expressway, accelerating its decline as a cohesive ethnic enclave.

Political Fallout

The political consequences were significant. Mayor Wagner, who had approved the project despite growing opposition, faced increased criticism as the full scale of the destruction became apparent. While he managed to complete his term, his legacy was tarnished. The 1965 mayoral election became partly a referendum on Moses-style urban renewal, with candidates taking stronger positions on the wisdom of large-scale infrastructure projects.

Robert Moses himself found that while he won the LOMEX battle, the controversy further eroded his public image. Though he maintained his multiple powerful positions, the expressway fight galvanized a new generation of community activists who began to more effectively challenge his other projects, creating the beginnings of a coordinated anti-Moses coalition.

Jane Jacobs, having lost her most high-profile fight against Moses, moved to Toronto in 1968, earlier than in our actual timeline. Her departure represented both a personal defeat and a symbolic loss for grassroots urbanism in New York, though her ideas continued to influence a growing number of urban planning students and young professionals.

Design and Construction Modifications

As construction progressed through the mid-1960s, some concessions were made to address the most vocal criticisms. Rather than a purely elevated structure as initially planned, portions of the expressway were built in a depressed "cut" with pedestrian bridges crossing overhead. Moses reluctantly approved designs for small parks and public spaces adjacent to the highway, attempting to soften its impact.

The eastern and western portions were completed first, connecting the existing bridges and tunnels to the new expressway structure. By 1969, the central segment was under construction, with the entire expressway opening to traffic in stages between 1970 and its final completion in late 1971.

Traffic Patterns and Initial Operation (1971-1975)

When the Lower Manhattan Expressway opened fully in 1971, it initially appeared to fulfill its promised function. Cross-Manhattan traffic flow improved significantly, with journey times between New Jersey and the Manhattan and Williamsburg Bridges reduced by up to 30 minutes during peak hours. Moses and his supporters pointed to these initial traffic improvements as vindication of the project.

However, the expressway quickly demonstrated the principle that would later be called "induced demand." Within two years of opening, traffic volumes had increased beyond projections as drivers altered their routes to take advantage of the new highway. By 1975, congestion during peak hours was approaching pre-expressway levels, though still somewhat improved from the 1960s conditions.

The noise and pollution impacts on adjacent neighborhoods were severe, particularly as environmental regulations were still in their infancy. Areas immediately adjacent to the expressway saw property values decline, creating a band of less desirable real estate along the highway corridor. This band of depressed property values would, ironically, play an important role in Manhattan's development in subsequent decades.

Long-term Impact

Transformation of Lower Manhattan (1975-1990)

SoHo's Alternative Evolution

In our actual timeline, SoHo transformed from a declining industrial area into an arts district and eventually a high-end retail and residential neighborhood. In this alternate timeline, the expressway fundamentally altered this trajectory. With the expressway cutting through its heart, SoHo never coalesced as a unified arts district. Instead, it fragmented into smaller sub-neighborhoods with distinct characters.

South of the expressway, some artists still moved into the remaining loft buildings during the 1970s economic downturn, attracted by lower rents in an area now considered less desirable due to the highway's noise and pollution. This area became a grittier, more underground arts scene than the SoHo of our timeline—less commercialized but also less cohesive.

North of the expressway, closer to Houston Street, the neighborhood developed more in line with the adjacent Greenwich Village, with a mix of residential conversions and retail. The famous cast-iron architecture that defines SoHo today was significantly diminished, as many of these historic buildings were demolished for the expressway.

Real Estate Development Patterns

The expressway created an unexpected real estate dynamic in Manhattan. Properties immediately adjacent to the highway initially decreased in value, creating a zone of relatively affordable real estate in an increasingly expensive Manhattan. By the early 1980s, developers began to recognize the opportunity this presented.

Large-scale development projects that might have been scattered throughout Lower Manhattan in our timeline instead clustered along the expressway corridor, where land was cheaper and assemblage of larger parcels was easier. By the late 1980s, the areas flanking the expressway had begun to attract significant commercial development, with office towers and larger residential projects replacing the smaller-scale buildings that had survived the initial demolition.

This development pattern created a more pronounced division between the areas north and south of the expressway corridor. The human-scaled neighborhoods that had historically characterized Lower Manhattan became increasingly fragmented, separated by both the physical barrier of the expressway and the wall of larger developments along its edges.

Urban Planning Paradigm Shifts (1980-2000)

The "Moses Model" Persists Longer

In our actual timeline, the defeat of the Lower Manhattan Expressway symbolized a turning point away from highway-centered urban renewal. In this alternate timeline, the successful construction of LOMEX had the opposite effect, extending the era of large-scale infrastructure projects and urban highway construction in American cities.

Cities that cancelled urban highways in our timeline—like Boston, San Francisco, and Philadelphia—were more likely to complete them in this alternate history. Moses' success with LOMEX was cited as evidence that short-term opposition would give way to long-term benefits, emboldening highway advocates in other cities.

This prolonged the dominance of automobile-centered planning in American cities by roughly a decade. The urban highway revolts that began in the late 1960s in our timeline were more fragmented and less successful in this alternate reality. The paradigm shift toward more human-scaled, transit-oriented development still occurred, but it was delayed until the 1990s rather than gaining momentum in the 1970s.

Jane Jacobs' Legacy Altered

Jane Jacobs' influence on urban planning followed a different trajectory in this alternate timeline. Her defeat in the LOMEX battle and earlier departure from New York diminished her immediate impact on American planning practice. Her ideas remained influential in academic circles but took longer to penetrate mainstream planning.

However, by the 1990s, as the limitations and negative consequences of the highway-building era became increasingly apparent, Jacobs experienced a strong resurgence of interest. Her critiques of highway-centered planning gained renewed attention, ironically using the LOMEX as a case study of the long-term costs of prioritizing automobile traffic over neighborhood vitality.

In this timeline, Jacobs became less of a triumphant David who defeated Goliath and more of a prescient critic whose warnings were ignored at great cost. This repositioning ultimately strengthened her intellectual legacy, as planners looked back at her predictions about the LOMEX's impact and found them largely validated.

Environmental and Transportation Consequences (1990-2010)

Air Quality and Environmental Justice

The environmental consequences of the expressway became increasingly apparent by the 1990s. The corridor experienced significantly higher levels of particulate pollution and nitrogen oxides compared to other parts of Manhattan. These environmental impacts had clear health consequences, with higher rates of asthma and respiratory conditions in neighborhoods adjacent to the expressway.

These impacts fell disproportionately on lower-income and minority communities, particularly in Chinatown and the eastern portions of the expressway corridor. By the mid-1990s, this disparity had become a textbook example of environmental justice concerns, spurring more rigorous environmental impact requirements for subsequent infrastructure projects throughout the country.

Transportation Evolution

The expressway's impact on New York's broader transportation system was complex. While it initially facilitated east-west automobile movement across Manhattan, it also entrenched car dependency in ways that complicated later efforts to promote public transit.

Manhattan's traffic patterns adapted around the expressway's presence. While cross-town congestion improved somewhat, north-south avenues experienced increased traffic as vehicles moved toward expressway entrances and away from exits. The anticipated benefits for commercial traffic were realized to some extent, with trucks gaining a more efficient east-west route, though congestion eventually diminished these gains.

Public transit development followed a different trajectory than in our timeline. With significant resources dedicated to the expressway, certain subway improvements were delayed or reduced in scope. The Second Avenue Subway, perpetually planned and delayed in our timeline, faced even greater funding challenges in this alternate history, with partial construction not beginning until the 2010s.

Contemporary Manhattan (2010-2025)

The Expressway Reclamation Movement

By the early 2010s, a growing movement advocated for substantially modifying or even removing the Lower Manhattan Expressway. This movement gained momentum from successful highway removal projects in other cities, particularly Boston's "Big Dig" and San Francisco's removal of the Embarcadero Freeway after the 1989 earthquake.

Urban planners and community activists proposed various alternatives, ranging from capping sections of the expressway to create linear parks (similar to the Rose Kennedy Greenway in Boston) to complete removal and replacement with a boulevard (following the model of Seoul's Cheonggyecheon restoration).

In 2018, after years of study, the city approved a partial capping project for the central section of the expressway, creating 4 acres of new public space above a portion of the highway. Construction began in 2022 and is scheduled for completion in 2027, representing a partial correction of what many now view as a historic planning mistake.

Real Estate and Neighborhood Identity in 2025

The real estate landscape of Lower Manhattan in 2025 differs significantly from our timeline. SoHo never became the cohesive, high-end shopping and residential district it is in our reality. Instead, it exists as several distinct sub-neighborhoods with varying characters. The expressway corridor itself is lined with larger, often corporate developments from the 1980s and 1990s, creating a very different architectural character than the historic districts of our timeline.

Property values show a distinctive pattern, with a marked gradient increasing with distance from the expressway. The capping project has begun to change this dynamic, with areas adjacent to the new public spaces seeing rapid appreciation.

Chinatown and Little Italy, having lost significant portions of their historic cores to the expressway, are considerably smaller and less cohesive than in our timeline. Chinatown, in particular, fragmented into separate enclaves north and south of the expressway, with the southern section eventually merging more with the expanding Financial District.

Cultural Legacy

The Lower Manhattan Expressway has become entrenched in New York's cultural identity—a controversial landmark that generations of New Yorkers have alternatively cursed and utilized. It appears prominently in films set in New York, often as a symbol of the city's complex relationship with modernity and Robert Moses' legacy.

In academia, the expressway serves as a case study examined by urban planning students worldwide. It represents both the power of determined leadership to reshape cities and the long-term consequences of prioritizing automobile infrastructure over neighborhood preservation. The partial capping project has become a prominent example of 21st-century efforts to mitigate the impacts of 20th-century highway planning while acknowledging the practical impossibility of completely undoing such massive interventions.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Amanda Chen, Professor of Urban Planning at Columbia University, offers this perspective: "The Lower Manhattan Expressway represents one of the most consequential 'what might have been' moments in American urban planning. In the timeline where it was built, we see how a single infrastructure project can permanently alter not just the physical form of a city, but its social and economic development trajectories. The expressway's construction extended the highway-building era in American cities by at least a decade, resulting in dozens of urban neighborhoods across the country being sacrificed to roadways that, in our timeline, were never built. While the efficiency gains were real, they came at a cost that subsequent generations have struggled to mitigate. The current capping project represents a belated acknowledgment that Moses' vision, while efficient from a traffic perspective, created long-term costs that exceeded its benefits."

James Wilson, Architectural Historian and author of "Cast Iron and Concrete: SoHo's Transformation," notes: "What's fascinating about the Lower Manhattan Expressway case is how it completely redirected the destiny of what we now know as SoHo. In our timeline, the preservation of SoHo's cast-iron buildings created one of the world's most distinctive architectural districts and a model for adaptive reuse. In the timeline where LOMEX was built, we lost not only those buildings but the possibility of that model emerging when it did. The arts-led gentrification that defined SoHo and influenced global urban development patterns took a different form, occurring in a more fragmented way across multiple neighborhoods rather than creating the concentrated example that proved so influential. It's a powerful reminder that preservation isn't just about saving buildings—it's about enabling future possibilities that we cannot foresee at the moment of decision."

Dr. Miguel Santos, Transportation Policy Analyst at the Regional Plan Association, reflects: "From a pure traffic engineering perspective, the Lower Manhattan Expressway initially delivered on its promises. Cross-town travel times improved significantly when it first opened. But what Moses and his contemporaries failed to appreciate was how thoroughly these new traffic patterns would reshape development and induce new demand. By creating easier automobile access, the expressway encouraged more automobile use, eventually bringing congestion back to similar levels while permanently altering the urban fabric. This cycle of highway building followed by induced demand followed by more highway building defined American transportation planning for decades. In the alternate timeline where LOMEX was built, this cycle continued longer, delaying the multimodal transportation approaches that have finally gained traction in recent years. The lesson isn't that infrastructure is bad—it's that we must understand how thoroughly transportation and land use are intertwined before making irreversible changes to either."