Soru

Passage A
The recent momentum behind demolishing mid-century urban expressways represents far more than an aesthetic upgrade; it is a vital act of restorative justice. For decades, these concrete behemoths have severed vibrant neighborhoods, often disproportionately affecting marginalized communities. By tearing down these structures and replacing them with street-level boulevards, cities can finally heal these historical scars. The reclamation of this land offers an unprecedented opportunity to stitch communities back together, fostering localized economic growth and prioritizing pedestrians over passing commuters. The dismantling of urban highways is not merely a demolition project, but a necessary renaissance of the civic sphere.

Passage B
The growing trend of removing urban highways has undeniable appeal, promising to reconnect fractured cityscapes. However, urban planners must approach these massive interventions with a degree of pragmatic caution. While the immediate localized benefits—such as newly available land and reduced noise pollution—are clear, the broader systemic impacts are complex. Diverting tens of thousands of vehicles daily does not erase traffic; it often displaces it onto adjacent, less-equipped neighborhoods. Furthermore, newly beautified corridors almost inevitably trigger rapid property value increases, threatening to displace the very residents these projects ostensibly aim to serve. A truly successful infrastructure revision requires anticipating these unintended socioeconomic consequences, rather than merely celebrating the removal of asphalt.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship between the attitudes of the two authors regarding the removal of urban highways?