Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasoncw
With Minneapolis there was discussion of the skyway counting against its urbanism, but I personally disagree with that general train of thought.
I think indoor urbanism should be considered similarly to outdoor urbanism.
Are Tokyo's vast underground shopping mall/train stations anti-urban? Or Kowloon Walled City? Is Hong Kong in general not urban because of the podium malls and pedestrian bridges? I would even argue that these kinds of three dimensional pedestrian systems make cities even more urban, by virtue of denser and richer pedestrian networks.
The point sometimes comes up when discussing Detroit's Renaissance Center, with people saying that it's a dead zone or that there's no pedestrian activity and things like that, but the podium of the Ren Cen is one of the most active pedestrian areas downtown.
|
There's a major difference between the Skyway and the Ren Cen. The Minneapolis Skyway is a public right of way, and the Ren Cen is not. The Skyway is more analogous to the underground walkways in Asian cities. Both the Ren Cen and the Skyway do detract from the street level urban activity, BUT the Skyway does a far better job of protecting small businesses, and thus keeping the dollars spent local.
The Ren Cen is more analogous to a place like the World Financial Center in Manhattan. WFC was built in the same era as the Ren Cen, and with the similar objectives of keeping office workers in a self-contained environment for the entire work day.