Our buddy, MarK Hurst (of Good Experience fame), recently shared a link to a New York Times article, "Rethinking Skyways and Tunnels" (requires registration).

Based on my own experiences with Skywalks, in particular, I take issue with the conclusions drawn from the article. Or, I choose to point out that this is a far more complex economic exchange of tradeoffs such that the 'reasons' for decline in cities with these structures is not necessarily the result of the structures. Indeed, how much 'more personable' is a street-level sidewalk rather than either skyway or a tunnel, especially in extreme weather. Do you find your interactions more frequent with people on the street than in a similar walkway suspended or depressed? Are you looking for interactions or trying to just get somewhere?

In fact, looking at the simple distinctions between pathways in this way makes the whole premise absurd. Does that not mean that cities that built such structures are not having economic issues? Not at all -- they are. But to make an assumption that they can tie the problems to the 'mode' of pedestrianism is taking a quantum leap.

Here's my experience. I grew up in Spokane, Washington. I recall that at least in my immediate neighborhood (which were not 'city' streets), once the snow got packed down in the streets, they'd be frozen just like that for months. After the plows would come through and scrape some of the tops smooth, we'd go out with our ice skates in the streets. This is not an environment where you'd necessarily relish hitting the streets during your lunch hour. Nearly every lunch hour I had that I went 'out', when working at a retail establishment downtown, was spent rushing through the skybridges.

Touted as the second largest sytem of skywalks in the nation, the city tries to capitalize on the skywalks for the purpose they best serve, and they work to optimize the street level with 'other' types of activities. From the city's own planning document:"The purpose of Spokane's skywalk system is to facilitate pedestrian. movement within
the core and downtown shopping area."

How did they effect retail? It caused an opportunity to create the "Sky Mall". Did this change the face of the street make-up? Not really. Most of the stuff on the street was either multi-story department stores, which you passed through on your path, or were non-retail (as in 'shopping') entities, like banks. It did mean that the typical first-floor cosmetics and shoes, etc. were either moved or 'split' to the sky-floor. But most of those retailers are now long gone -- but not because of the sky system.

A couple of years ago I accompanied my husband to Las Vegas. The trip suddenly turned into an experience design research project. Sky-level retailing is 'huge' there for one reason -- it's directly in the path of creating open-air cross-walks across traffic (removing the pedestrian element from an already congested intersection. But Steve Wynn, in his design brilliance, makes sure that the pedestrian has to pass several stores just to round the corner to get to the next cross-over.

I don't see the element of where you move the pedestrian to be an issue. I see the issue as being one of capitalizing on where the pedestrian is. Tearning down the skybridges and tunnels will not 'fix' a bad design. I think we just need more Steve Wynns in these cities to help them with their understanding of optimizing the human experience.

And sometimes the skywalk can enhance an experience in ways that nothing else can -- thus the glass skywalk that will cross the Grand Canyon. (see also)

Dallas Mayor, Laura Miller, is quoted in the article, "If I could take a cement mixer and pour cement in and clog up the tunnels, I would do it today," Apparently the rash of red-level air quality that we've been experiencing in the Dallas area is of little concern to the mayor. Who wants to be on the hot streets when you might even see people keel over from a respiratory attack?

The 'whining' in the NYT article is reminiscent of the nay-sayers who attributed similar atrocities to the freeway systems -- that they'd pass by the cities. Isn't that sortof the point? The bottom line is, some people just want to get somewhere. Who are we to prevent them from doing so, in comfort, or in safety? And, can't we simply just get smarter about putting things we want to entice them with, in their path?