So, I'm starting to understand what and why skyways are. They provide a continuous conditioned (heated) environment for areas that undergo extreme climatic conditions in the winter.
Can anyone recommend any projects/images that show HOW skyways are used / how they have been designed / how they have been integrated architecturally?
Steven Holl's Linked Hybrid is probably the most recent and more complex example as it links an entire block of towers together.
Typically, skyways are used in specific-use situations-- from parking or transportation to high-density, high-use locations.
Minneapolis, Calgary and Vancouver all have extensive skyways. For example.
Other famous skyways include Covent Garden and Mumbai Skywalks.
Although an architectural feature, skywalks are routed principally more in planning. It takes a series of complex agreements and codes to implement skywalks. They, however, can double the premiere level (first 3 floors of the building) because they add a significant route not connected to surface transportation.
In more temperate and hotter climates, one can consider the High Line or Promenade plantée as skywalks.
atlanta has them too... but in this case its not about the weather, but rather about helping white suburbanites feel safe in the big bad city back in the 70s... they also serve to connect all of the buildings designed/built by john portman, the architect and developer... so, it also served an economic function of keeping people inside 'portmanland'...
there are also places like houston that have similar systems in the form of tunnels... philadelphia even has a small underground system too...
Hm thanks for the responses. I'm still trying to wrap my head around them (though I understand what they are / how they function). Maybe Linked Hybrid is good to look at more to see how they _can_ function. I'm looking at them specifically in extreme cold climate conditions, but I'll check out all the recommendations to better familiarize myself.
Skyways are in direct conflict with urbanism (if that matters to you). Look up Minneapolis skywalks for textbook examples (birthplace of the concept).
They kill street level retail and encourage a shopping-mall approach to downtown development.
Montreal and Toronto are good examples of what happens when you replace skyways with tunnels: commercial clusterfuck reminiscent of Vegas. How to I escape the underbelly of this particular shitthole? Ask around, for exit signs are strategically hidden.
I guess whatever Phillip Crosby said...
Skyways do often have a useful role in hospital complexes (where efficiency is crucial), but one could still argue the cost is not worth the payoff.
skyways are generally considered an unhappy vestige of modernism. while there is some value to a climate controlled circulation path in extreme climates, the vast majority of skyways were meant to separate classes of people and create separation from the street. they generally kill ground floor retail and for that reason inhibit walkability. most progressive cities, even in cold climates, are taking steps to remove skyways, if at all practical.
detroit is littered with them. they generally span between a parking deck and an adjacent job center. detroit's new center in the 1980s created an extensive system of walkways that connect the fisher building, new center one, cadillac place (old gm hq), and the kahn building. retail was incorporated into the paths and for a while sustained the area as a shopping destination though in recent years retailers have struggled. one of detroit's more famous skyways connects one woodward (yamasaki) with the guardian building (wirt rowland) high over larned street. there was talk about turning it into a lounge a few years back, but nothing came of it.
They just need to design skyways fully accessible to everyone.
Maybe the major key is the entrance; it gotta directly connects street and skyway. Which will make the ground-floor entrance area itself a prime location for business.
The current skyway system that exist in most places are hidden inside of huge office towers.
The current skyway system that exist in most places are hidden inside of huge office towers.
The skyway system in Minneapolis is actually quite open and accessible to anyone willing to walk in a street level public entrance and take the escalators up to level 2 - skyway. If you park in a downtown parking garage they actually encourage you to take the skyways as there are maps showing you how to take a path all the way across downtown. I don't for a minute believe that it was built with similar intentions as Houston or Atlanta, primarily being segregation. Downtown workers are just lazy and don't want to put on a winter coat to grab lunch at the sandwich shop a block away.
What's interesting is that the Mpls business district is littered with skyways, but the warehouse district has almost none. Not without surprise the skyway part of town has very little going on after business hours, but the nightlife is quite alive where there are no skyways.
They truly cater to the office worker, and little else.
won williams has it right. it is more a response to the perception of safety (or lack thereof) in the urban environment than of climate. i don't know how they work in detroit, but most midwestern cities have them. here is a rough list from wikipedia that includes cities large and small of all climates:
This is really interesting to me. Skyways that are more than 1/2 stories above ground seem to be an entirely different kind of monster, which are in less of a conflict with the urban. Other than delaminating and segregating (not necessarily through demographic or population) the ground plane, how else does the skyway conflict with urbanism?
What's so interesting to me is that the intent behind skyways seems to be the _extension_ of urbanism; spatially, but moreso seasonally (like I said, the climatic catalyst is the lens in which I am looking at these). It is strange that these things are always either above ground or below ground; always distinct from the ground plane. Why not have them be ON the ground? What if they were not connecting distinct blocks seperated by streets, but a complex of buildings or programs within a single block? Thinking of it at the _architectural scale_ (as opposed to the urban scale), I think there is an unused potential in the functional typology. Am I crazy?
Skywalks and tunnels seem to work quite well when it comes to -30 (+ windchill). On the flip side they do tend to kill off vitality of street level urbanism. All cities (even places like NYC) can only succeed on a single plane of interaction. Even pedestrian only streets are tough to properly execute.
Cities that have extensive networks of skywalks and tunnels are worse off for having them. But then again, who am I to judge? Places like deep south, Florida, Texas, etc, only started having huge population spikes with the invention of air conditioning. People will pick comfort over actively contributing to culture any day...
I think half of America is one prolonged heatway + blackout combo away from completely perishing. You want me to walk??? On the street??? Communist!!
I don't think skyways are necessarily at ends with urbanism.
I think the High Line and the Promenade plantée are good examples. If we take the concept of urbanism taught by Jane Jacobs and William Whyte at full faith, both examples should fail horribly because they fail the litmus test of street level interaction and the plus-minus 3-5 feet in elevation rules.
However, I think elevated pedestrian routes can work if they connect multiple related objects, offer a specific unobtainable experience or even perhaps provide a route of least resistance.
The Promenade Plantee connects various parks and cultural institutions (leisure) and, of course, is one of the longest continuous gardens in the world.
The High Line is unique in that it will unify three neighborhoods of New York while providing both a unique urban experience and a much preferred walking path (Chelsea, Hell's Kitchen and the West Village don't have a particularly stellar pedestrian environment-- 9th avenue is a crap hole).
But yeah... ease of access, destinations and other similar considerations can make these work if at least half your intentions work out. Otherwise, they crash and burn easily!
I think the most important issue of skyways (unless they are instituted by/through government) is the expense is usually far too much for most small businesses and reaching demographics outside of street level interaction (advertising, signage) becomes a hassle.
Hong Kong has many areas, particularly on the Kowloon side of the bay, that exist with 4 or more stories of public space. Retail shops, restaurants etc, are located several stories up from the street level. They also have shops and establishments 1 story down, in a garden or basement level, some of which are in spaces that would almost certainly violate building codes in the US. When in these areas you already have to remember to look up, or you might miss a great restaurant on the 3rd or 4th of a building.
Mongkok, Tsim Sha Tsui, Jordan and most of Nathan Road are all examples of this kind of development. I think the explanation is pretty simple, overwhelming density, it is 5x more densely populated than Manhattan.
Here is an example image, there a tons more if you search any of the names I mentioned. Fyi, a lot of large Tzao Lao restaurants in Hong Kong have 2 or more floors of dining space, so even if you only see signage at the first floor, it is very common for the tenants space to extend vertically upward.
I guess my main comment on that type of urbanism you describe (the link you posted isn't working, so without seeing it), that there may be "4 or more stories of public space", there is still only 1 pedestrian plane
(this isn't a criticism of you in any way, but holy fuck it's amazing how we as architects have no clear consensus or significant understanding of what 'public' is. This starts to get into something larger I've been thinking about recently, just the meaning of public space)
So people are still all walking on the street, but to get to this 'public space' they have to go into buildings and up elevators / stairs. Isn't accessibility a significant element of public space??
Point taken, though in Hong Kong interactions do exist on the street level and below the street at the massive MTR stations. The stations in Hong Kong are heavily used, modern and functional. Many of them contain 7-eleven type shops, as well cake shops and other small retail stores. They often have multiple entrances that stretch over several blocks. Some of the entrances are located directly within major shopping malls, while others are located at the public sidewalk.
As for your question, I'm not sure what you are getting at. It is hard to imagine the city being more urban, so it seems the accessibility isn't a problem. When you are accustomed to taking elevators and escalators up the higher floors, i believe the elevation is not much of a restriction, or not anymore than using a crosswalk is to people living in other cities.
I'm not sure about the image, it shows up for me. You can google "Mong Kok" to get some images, you'll see the signage often extends up several stories and the businesses associated with the signs often extend up as well. Keep in mind, those images are likely not taken at special events or special hours, the numbers of people you are seeing are typical for any given day.
The question wasn't particular. It's certainly 'urban', but I feel like that is largely due to the density (which is a result of a host of other factors, that engendered this 'vertical urbanism'). Physically, it is certainly 'urban', but I feel like the term 'urban' encompasses much more than just the built environment but to the sociological level, where 'degrees of urbanity' could actually be represented by the social networks and relations that take place within the environment (and the density of THOSE!)
I don't agree with the statement : "All cities (even places like NYC) can only succeed on a single plane of interaction.", but I question this response. It's like, for one frame of mind, it's doing too much; and for another, it's not doing enough.
Image doesn't work for me either. Says "no hotlinking of copyrighted materials". Copying and pasting of the image URL in another tab works though...
I agree with alucidwake (except for the part where he disagrees with me). There is a clear line separating public urbanism and private property. Try falling asleep on a bench in US mall. Also malls and private shopping centers tend to close (ie, get locked up) after a certain hour.
I think this problem is much more evident in US than in other places (such as Honk Kong). After years of urban planning disasters, we have very rigid relationships between urban uses. This here be office park, here's a shopping mall, here's a bedroom community (with no through traffic access). There's very little interaction between these concepts, and the idea of 'public space' has shrunk to non-existence. State your purpose for being here citizen! etc...
Downtowns have been the last vestiges of everything coming together in one place. A perfect mix of density and urban multi-use. Skywalks (original topic of this tread) tend to dismiss such urban connection as too dirty, too cold/hot, too scary for participation.
That said, I would not perceive 4 levels of shopping, regardless of the layout or density, to be a component of urbanism any more than one of two multi-storey K-Marts you can find in Manhattan. It's a temporary trapping within a much greater context.
Now the image works... I'm not seeing a multi-level urbanism in that picture at all... A bunch of private businesses occupy higher floors.... That's it.
sorry about the photograph, I just used Google to find a representative image, that particular shot is inconsequential, I didn't mean to grab a copyrighted image.
I think it is totally urbanism. Those buildings are primarily residential,mixed with commercial and even some light industrial uses. The area is vibrant with residents who leave their homes and travel only a short distance for diverse activities such as work, dining and leisure shopping, If you go inside many of those buildings you'll find that their exists an active urban life. They do not just have vestibules with elevators up to the 4th floor shops, they have intertwined hallways with many shops that have retail windows on the hallway, People hang out on the various levels. Some are shopping mall like, some are actual shopping malls, and many others are less organized spaces, changing dynamically as needed.
I'm a bit confused by this entire thread, It posits that simple skyways are a major component in the death of urban centers, while I'd say other factors are much more important. In all but a very select few cities, skyways aren't common enough or important enough to have caused the declines that are being attributed to them.
"It posits that simple skyways are a major component in the death of urban centers"
Noone is really saying that. They are just another US icon of failed understanding of good urban planning.
Honk Kong is really a bad example for any US architect or urban planner. Things just don't work that way over here. You have an artificial restriction on land and a huge population. We have too much land to even know what to do with, so we live as far apart from each other as we can. Those few opportunities for gathering spaces are often butchered by well meaning yet half baked ideas.
A number of great American cities died a very sad death between 40's and 80's. Revitalization is a daunting task. This housing bubble did reveal that there is an increasing number of Americans putting a premium on urban existence. Like walking to work and all necessary amenities. Things are slowly changing, but it will take a while.
Those damn skyways. The skyways are there to remind us of time when almost nobody gave a fuck.
Not coming from USA, so im sorry for still not getting very clear the whole 'skyways contra urbanism/good urban planning' ideas, and the impact there.
So if skyway is a bad plan for USA; does it mean you see the same view for places like railway platforms or waiting rooms of public transport?
Altho they can only be characterized as semi-public space (cause of the accessibility issues); Within their limitations, aren't they still serving their function of connecting?
It extends urban interactions in more layered, 3 dimensional way.
Help me out, cause even for USA case, i do still think skyway is totally urbanism. Physically n functionally..
I mean, its a contra to private automobiles; the brutal interventions of urban manners/living. How bad could it be?
i'll make this simple. buildings are privately-owned. when public circulation has to flow through private space, as it does in the case of skyways, it puts the public under the surveillance and lawful control of a private entity. why does this matter? let's say you are homeless, the private owner of the space you occupy can evict you for trespassing on private property. furthermore, because of the separation of public space (on the street) and private space (within the skyway), it diminishes the vitality of public space by stratifying space in terms of this social hierarchy. it promotes an anti-democratic concept of space.
skyways in the unites states have actually been used to promote car culture by connecting parking decks through a series of skyways to linked destinations. it allows the driver to conveniently park and make his way to his destination without ever having to cross into the public space.
i'm kind of 6 one way, half a dozen another on skyways. of course they rob people and vitality from the urban environment. but it isn't as if the typical situation is that skyways are just wall to wall filled with people and the street is completely empty as a result of this. as synergy notes, they don't really make that big of a difference. at least in cities i've had a lot of experience with, there just aren't enough of them to have a significant effect. perhaps in a place like houston they are. but in chicago, there is so much going on in the street that you can afford to lose a few people here and there. in fact when you take public transit into account, arguably subways and elevated lines can take a far greater amount of people away from the streetscape. not every transit stop just exits to the street level (like, for example, the merchandise mart). the people mover (which won williams may find to be a bad example) is basically just a massive skyway. while i understand that architects will inevitably be turned off by the whole "form follows fear" mode of design, in the end i think there are worse problems with the urban environment to focus on.
I disliked whoever painted that mural of the Romans crapping since pants didn't really exist back them and the Romans were pretty adamant about wearing skirts/togas/robes.
Skyways
So, I'm starting to understand what and why skyways are. They provide a continuous conditioned (heated) environment for areas that undergo extreme climatic conditions in the winter.
Can anyone recommend any projects/images that show HOW skyways are used / how they have been designed / how they have been integrated architecturally?
Steven Holl's Linked Hybrid is probably the most recent and more complex example as it links an entire block of towers together.
Typically, skyways are used in specific-use situations-- from parking or transportation to high-density, high-use locations.
Minneapolis, Calgary and Vancouver all have extensive skyways. For example.
Other famous skyways include Covent Garden and Mumbai Skywalks.
Although an architectural feature, skywalks are routed principally more in planning. It takes a series of complex agreements and codes to implement skywalks. They, however, can double the premiere level (first 3 floors of the building) because they add a significant route not connected to surface transportation.
In more temperate and hotter climates, one can consider the High Line or Promenade plantée as skywalks.
atlanta has them too... but in this case its not about the weather, but rather about helping white suburbanites feel safe in the big bad city back in the 70s... they also serve to connect all of the buildings designed/built by john portman, the architect and developer... so, it also served an economic function of keeping people inside 'portmanland'...
there are also places like houston that have similar systems in the form of tunnels... philadelphia even has a small underground system too...
Hm thanks for the responses. I'm still trying to wrap my head around them (though I understand what they are / how they function). Maybe Linked Hybrid is good to look at more to see how they _can_ function. I'm looking at them specifically in extreme cold climate conditions, but I'll check out all the recommendations to better familiarize myself.
Kind of strange things.. no?
Not really strange as it is a variation on the path typology.
Chicago has the pedway which is a combination of skyways and (mostly) underground tunnels.
Skyways are in direct conflict with urbanism (if that matters to you). Look up Minneapolis skywalks for textbook examples (birthplace of the concept).
They kill street level retail and encourage a shopping-mall approach to downtown development.
Montreal and Toronto are good examples of what happens when you replace skyways with tunnels: commercial clusterfuck reminiscent of Vegas. How to I escape the underbelly of this particular shitthole? Ask around, for exit signs are strategically hidden.
I guess whatever Phillip Crosby said...
Skyways do often have a useful role in hospital complexes (where efficiency is crucial), but one could still argue the cost is not worth the payoff.
EXXXXXACTLY!!!!!!!
skyways are generally considered an unhappy vestige of modernism. while there is some value to a climate controlled circulation path in extreme climates, the vast majority of skyways were meant to separate classes of people and create separation from the street. they generally kill ground floor retail and for that reason inhibit walkability. most progressive cities, even in cold climates, are taking steps to remove skyways, if at all practical.
detroit is littered with them. they generally span between a parking deck and an adjacent job center. detroit's new center in the 1980s created an extensive system of walkways that connect the fisher building, new center one, cadillac place (old gm hq), and the kahn building. retail was incorporated into the paths and for a while sustained the area as a shopping destination though in recent years retailers have struggled. one of detroit's more famous skyways connects one woodward (yamasaki) with the guardian building (wirt rowland) high over larned street. there was talk about turning it into a lounge a few years back, but nothing came of it.
They just need to design skyways fully accessible to everyone.
Maybe the major key is the entrance; it gotta directly connects street and skyway. Which will make the ground-floor entrance area itself a prime location for business.
The current skyway system that exist in most places are hidden inside of huge office towers.
The skyway system in Minneapolis is actually quite open and accessible to anyone willing to walk in a street level public entrance and take the escalators up to level 2 - skyway. If you park in a downtown parking garage they actually encourage you to take the skyways as there are maps showing you how to take a path all the way across downtown. I don't for a minute believe that it was built with similar intentions as Houston or Atlanta, primarily being segregation. Downtown workers are just lazy and don't want to put on a winter coat to grab lunch at the sandwich shop a block away.
What's interesting is that the Mpls business district is littered with skyways, but the warehouse district has almost none. Not without surprise the skyway part of town has very little going on after business hours, but the nightlife is quite alive where there are no skyways.
They truly cater to the office worker, and little else.
won williams has it right. it is more a response to the perception of safety (or lack thereof) in the urban environment than of climate. i don't know how they work in detroit, but most midwestern cities have them. here is a rough list from wikipedia that includes cities large and small of all climates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyway
"Skyways are in direct conflict with urbanism"
This is really interesting to me. Skyways that are more than 1/2 stories above ground seem to be an entirely different kind of monster, which are in less of a conflict with the urban. Other than delaminating and segregating (not necessarily through demographic or population) the ground plane, how else does the skyway conflict with urbanism?
What's so interesting to me is that the intent behind skyways seems to be the _extension_ of urbanism; spatially, but moreso seasonally (like I said, the climatic catalyst is the lens in which I am looking at these). It is strange that these things are always either above ground or below ground; always distinct from the ground plane. Why not have them be ON the ground? What if they were not connecting distinct blocks seperated by streets, but a complex of buildings or programs within a single block? Thinking of it at the _architectural scale_ (as opposed to the urban scale), I think there is an unused potential in the functional typology. Am I crazy?
1/2 storey skywals would be hilarious with trucks and buses knocking them down every time they pass underneath.
intent behind skyways seems to be the _extension_ of urbanism
They are not for the simple reason that they are private property. Just like your local mall is not an idea of urbanism.
Why not have them be ON the ground?
We can call them sidewalks! With some kind of blinkety blink lights delegating right of way between motor and pedestrian traffic.
ok fine, maybe not 1-2, but minimally elevated (as opposed to the Petronas Towers).
What good are sidewalks when its -30 degrees outside, not counting the wind chill?
Skywalks and tunnels seem to work quite well when it comes to -30 (+ windchill). On the flip side they do tend to kill off vitality of street level urbanism. All cities (even places like NYC) can only succeed on a single plane of interaction. Even pedestrian only streets are tough to properly execute.
Cities that have extensive networks of skywalks and tunnels are worse off for having them. But then again, who am I to judge? Places like deep south, Florida, Texas, etc, only started having huge population spikes with the invention of air conditioning. People will pick comfort over actively contributing to culture any day...
I think half of America is one prolonged heatway + blackout combo away from completely perishing. You want me to walk??? On the street??? Communist!!
come on guys, not ALL skyways are in direct conflict w/ urbanism.
transport of prisoners...
transport of ballerinas...
transport of prisoners...
@holz:
You win free internets for that post!
I don't think skyways are necessarily at ends with urbanism.
I think the High Line and the Promenade plantée are good examples. If we take the concept of urbanism taught by Jane Jacobs and William Whyte at full faith, both examples should fail horribly because they fail the litmus test of street level interaction and the plus-minus 3-5 feet in elevation rules.
However, I think elevated pedestrian routes can work if they connect multiple related objects, offer a specific unobtainable experience or even perhaps provide a route of least resistance.
The Promenade Plantee connects various parks and cultural institutions (leisure) and, of course, is one of the longest continuous gardens in the world.
The High Line is unique in that it will unify three neighborhoods of New York while providing both a unique urban experience and a much preferred walking path (Chelsea, Hell's Kitchen and the West Village don't have a particularly stellar pedestrian environment-- 9th avenue is a crap hole).
But yeah... ease of access, destinations and other similar considerations can make these work if at least half your intentions work out. Otherwise, they crash and burn easily!
I think the most important issue of skyways (unless they are instituted by/through government) is the expense is usually far too much for most small businesses and reaching demographics outside of street level interaction (advertising, signage) becomes a hassle.
aren't most prisoners -before 'rehabilitation'- in direct conflict with 'urbani(ty)sm' too? and where do you put a sidewalk in that canal?
"All cities (even places like NYC) can only succeed on a single plane of interaction."
Hong Kong.
did someone say SKYline 4 WAY???
"All cities (even places like NYC) can only succeed on a single plane of interaction."
Hong Kong."
Can you explain (show)?
Hong Kong has many areas, particularly on the Kowloon side of the bay, that exist with 4 or more stories of public space. Retail shops, restaurants etc, are located several stories up from the street level. They also have shops and establishments 1 story down, in a garden or basement level, some of which are in spaces that would almost certainly violate building codes in the US. When in these areas you already have to remember to look up, or you might miss a great restaurant on the 3rd or 4th of a building.
Mongkok, Tsim Sha Tsui, Jordan and most of Nathan Road are all examples of this kind of development. I think the explanation is pretty simple, overwhelming density, it is 5x more densely populated than Manhattan.
Here is an example image, there a tons more if you search any of the names I mentioned. Fyi, a lot of large Tzao Lao restaurants in Hong Kong have 2 or more floors of dining space, so even if you only see signage at the first floor, it is very common for the tenants space to extend vertically upward.
I guess my main comment on that type of urbanism you describe (the link you posted isn't working, so without seeing it), that there may be "4 or more stories of public space", there is still only 1 pedestrian plane
(this isn't a criticism of you in any way, but holy fuck it's amazing how we as architects have no clear consensus or significant understanding of what 'public' is. This starts to get into something larger I've been thinking about recently, just the meaning of public space)
So people are still all walking on the street, but to get to this 'public space' they have to go into buildings and up elevators / stairs. Isn't accessibility a significant element of public space??
Point taken, though in Hong Kong interactions do exist on the street level and below the street at the massive MTR stations. The stations in Hong Kong are heavily used, modern and functional. Many of them contain 7-eleven type shops, as well cake shops and other small retail stores. They often have multiple entrances that stretch over several blocks. Some of the entrances are located directly within major shopping malls, while others are located at the public sidewalk.
As for your question, I'm not sure what you are getting at. It is hard to imagine the city being more urban, so it seems the accessibility isn't a problem. When you are accustomed to taking elevators and escalators up the higher floors, i believe the elevation is not much of a restriction, or not anymore than using a crosswalk is to people living in other cities.
I'm not sure about the image, it shows up for me. You can google "Mong Kok" to get some images, you'll see the signage often extends up several stories and the businesses associated with the signs often extend up as well. Keep in mind, those images are likely not taken at special events or special hours, the numbers of people you are seeing are typical for any given day.
The question wasn't particular. It's certainly 'urban', but I feel like that is largely due to the density (which is a result of a host of other factors, that engendered this 'vertical urbanism'). Physically, it is certainly 'urban', but I feel like the term 'urban' encompasses much more than just the built environment but to the sociological level, where 'degrees of urbanity' could actually be represented by the social networks and relations that take place within the environment (and the density of THOSE!)
I don't agree with the statement : "All cities (even places like NYC) can only succeed on a single plane of interaction.", but I question this response. It's like, for one frame of mind, it's doing too much; and for another, it's not doing enough.
Image doesn't work for me either. Says "no hotlinking of copyrighted materials". Copying and pasting of the image URL in another tab works though...
I agree with alucidwake (except for the part where he disagrees with me). There is a clear line separating public urbanism and private property. Try falling asleep on a bench in US mall. Also malls and private shopping centers tend to close (ie, get locked up) after a certain hour.
I think this problem is much more evident in US than in other places (such as Honk Kong). After years of urban planning disasters, we have very rigid relationships between urban uses. This here be office park, here's a shopping mall, here's a bedroom community (with no through traffic access). There's very little interaction between these concepts, and the idea of 'public space' has shrunk to non-existence. State your purpose for being here citizen! etc...
Downtowns have been the last vestiges of everything coming together in one place. A perfect mix of density and urban multi-use. Skywalks (original topic of this tread) tend to dismiss such urban connection as too dirty, too cold/hot, too scary for participation.
That said, I would not perceive 4 levels of shopping, regardless of the layout or density, to be a component of urbanism any more than one of two multi-storey K-Marts you can find in Manhattan. It's a temporary trapping within a much greater context.
Now the image works... I'm not seeing a multi-level urbanism in that picture at all... A bunch of private businesses occupy higher floors.... That's it.
sorry about the photograph, I just used Google to find a representative image, that particular shot is inconsequential, I didn't mean to grab a copyrighted image.
I think it is totally urbanism. Those buildings are primarily residential,mixed with commercial and even some light industrial uses. The area is vibrant with residents who leave their homes and travel only a short distance for diverse activities such as work, dining and leisure shopping, If you go inside many of those buildings you'll find that their exists an active urban life. They do not just have vestibules with elevators up to the 4th floor shops, they have intertwined hallways with many shops that have retail windows on the hallway, People hang out on the various levels. Some are shopping mall like, some are actual shopping malls, and many others are less organized spaces, changing dynamically as needed.
I'm a bit confused by this entire thread, It posits that simple skyways are a major component in the death of urban centers, while I'd say other factors are much more important. In all but a very select few cities, skyways aren't common enough or important enough to have caused the declines that are being attributed to them.
Noone is really saying that. They are just another US icon of failed understanding of good urban planning.
Honk Kong is really a bad example for any US architect or urban planner. Things just don't work that way over here. You have an artificial restriction on land and a huge population. We have too much land to even know what to do with, so we live as far apart from each other as we can. Those few opportunities for gathering spaces are often butchered by well meaning yet half baked ideas.
A number of great American cities died a very sad death between 40's and 80's. Revitalization is a daunting task. This housing bubble did reveal that there is an increasing number of Americans putting a premium on urban existence. Like walking to work and all necessary amenities. Things are slowly changing, but it will take a while.
Those damn skyways. The skyways are there to remind us of time when almost nobody gave a fuck.
Not coming from USA, so im sorry for still not getting very clear the whole 'skyways contra urbanism/good urban planning' ideas, and the impact there.
So if skyway is a bad plan for USA; does it mean you see the same view for places like railway platforms or waiting rooms of public transport?
Altho they can only be characterized as semi-public space (cause of the accessibility issues); Within their limitations, aren't they still serving their function of connecting?
It extends urban interactions in more layered, 3 dimensional way.
Help me out, cause even for USA case, i do still think skyway is totally urbanism. Physically n functionally..
I mean, its a contra to private automobiles; the brutal interventions of urban manners/living. How bad could it be?
i'll make this simple. buildings are privately-owned. when public circulation has to flow through private space, as it does in the case of skyways, it puts the public under the surveillance and lawful control of a private entity. why does this matter? let's say you are homeless, the private owner of the space you occupy can evict you for trespassing on private property. furthermore, because of the separation of public space (on the street) and private space (within the skyway), it diminishes the vitality of public space by stratifying space in terms of this social hierarchy. it promotes an anti-democratic concept of space.
skyways in the unites states have actually been used to promote car culture by connecting parking decks through a series of skyways to linked destinations. it allows the driver to conveniently park and make his way to his destination without ever having to cross into the public space.
^ somebody got it right
^ somebody didn't read any of the other posts. The issue of private property came up 15 times.
i'm kind of 6 one way, half a dozen another on skyways. of course they rob people and vitality from the urban environment. but it isn't as if the typical situation is that skyways are just wall to wall filled with people and the street is completely empty as a result of this. as synergy notes, they don't really make that big of a difference. at least in cities i've had a lot of experience with, there just aren't enough of them to have a significant effect. perhaps in a place like houston they are. but in chicago, there is so much going on in the street that you can afford to lose a few people here and there. in fact when you take public transit into account, arguably subways and elevated lines can take a far greater amount of people away from the streetscape. not every transit stop just exits to the street level (like, for example, the merchandise mart). the people mover (which won williams may find to be a bad example) is basically just a massive skyway. while i understand that architects will inevitably be turned off by the whole "form follows fear" mode of design, in the end i think there are worse problems with the urban environment to focus on.
"it promotes an anti-democratic concept of space"
so does a toilet, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have them...
Eh, you can uh... reconfigure the toilet!
...
Let us not forget how rich people use to take shits! Squatting behind something by yourself back in those days was considered 'lowly.'
Ahh, Romans... manipulators of democracy but democratic shitters.
whoops.
FINALLY.
I disliked whoever painted that mural of the Romans crapping since pants didn't really exist back them and the Romans were pretty adamant about wearing skirts/togas/robes.
Mild Christian overtone!
so does a toilet, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have them...
i don't think i could shit in your skyway as easily as you could shit in my toilet...
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.