For quite some time now a very large parcel of land between 9th street, 11th street, New York Avenue, and H Street where the city's former convention center used to stand has stood essentially vacant as an open-air parking lot in the middle of the city. Naturally, I've more than once wondered what, if anything, is supposed to go there. And now we know. The project looks pretty cool, though it does seem that skybridges are a bad ideas.
« Lying | Main | Profile of a Suicide Bomber »
Old Convention Center
19 Mar 2008 01:14 pm
Comments (12)
Short pedestrian bridges between retail shopping areas work pretty well as long as you still have the option to cross at the ground level. The embarcadero center in san francisco has them. It is all about the convenience to the pedestrian.
Skybridges are a disaster. San Francisco, an amazingly walkable city full of vibrant neighborhoods and bustling tourist districts, has one major dead zone: the massive Golden Gateway-Embarcadero Center redevelopment project, occupying some of the city's (and the world's) most desirable real estate, absolutely deserted at street level any time other than M-F 9-5. Even though there's street-level space and it's easy to cross at street level. Retail and restaurants do terrible business; turnover is high and glaringly unleased space is everywhere. Because of skybridges.
The Redevelopment Agency's big Japan Center project, also skybridged, is much less successful than everything around it, but at least not totally dead.
Alan probably has a point. Keeping the shops at ground level is probably better.
I do think that some of the embarcadero's unleased space problem is due to management's keeping the rents too high and that alot of downtown is deserted except for M-F 9-5.
It sounds like skybridges are more a single aspect of the larger problem: the 1960s conception of these skybridges as a way of separating pedestrians from traffic and in place of crosswalks and traffic signals. Downtown Indianapolis has a significant system of skybridges and tunnels connecting the convention center, large hotels, Circle Center Mall, parking garages, and state government buildings. There are plenty of restaurants and other businesses in that part of downtown at street level. While I would never hold up Indianapolis as an ideal pedestrian city compared to cities in the Northeast, our downtown is doing well compared to cities of comparable size and location. The distinction between Indianapolis and what is described in the links is that the crosswalks and stoplights remain intact at street level. The only time I use the skybridges or tunnels is if I am in one of the connected buildings or if it's really damn cold. If it's a decent day, there's nothing about the layout of the streets that would compel me above or below ground.
It sounds like skybridges are more a single aspect of the larger problem: the 1960s conception of these skybridges as a way of separating pedestrians from traffic and in place of crosswalks and traffic signals. Downtown Indianapolis has a significant system of skybridges and tunnels connecting the convention center, large hotels, Circle Center Mall, parking garages, and state government buildings. There are plenty of restaurants and other businesses in that part of downtown at street level. While I would never hold up Indianapolis as an ideal pedestrian city compared to cities in the Northeast, our downtown is doing well compared to cities of comparable size and location. The distinction between Indianapolis and what is described in the links is that the crosswalks and stoplights remain intact at street level. The only time I use the skybridges or tunnels is if I am in one of the connected buildings or if it's really damn cold. If it's a decent day, there's nothing about the layout of the streets that would compel me above or below ground.
The bizarre thing about using skybridges at a convention center is that the public money spent on convention centers is justified by claiming that conventiongoers will spend their money on local businesses, boosting the economy.
However, if conventiongoers are using skybridges to go from their hotel to the convention center to the upper-floor restaurant, they never come into contact with the rest of the city, and they end up not participating or contributing to the non-convention-center-related economy.
Hotels somehow get built without taxpayer dollars. It strikes me that convention centers would get built by private investors, too, without the need for mayors to spend public money on them.
John is correct that the really bad skybridges are part of the larger vision of '60s urban redevelopment -- separating people from the streets, and separating housing and commerce from the surrounding urban fabric. Or from the dark people. Embarcadero-Golden Gateway is a really pure expression of this philosophy.
OTOH, having lived through sixteen D.C. Februaries and Augusts, maybe skybridges aren't such a bad idea.
Skybridges or no, I hope the eateries in the new development do well. As it stands, there are next to no quick, cheap places to eat near the Embassy Suites Convention Center hotel.
One of the bellhops is a Maui boy. Small world.
I dunno, I kinda like skybridges.
The ones in Roslyn built in the 70's are definitely crappy because they don't go anywhere and the various wilson blvd/lee hwy/ft meyer drive under/overpasses are indeed practically freeways.
The ones in Balston, built in the late 80's/early 90's are functional and very useful in inclement weather. You can go from the end of Carlyn Springs Road to the Balston Metro - about 1/4 mile - without going outside. Or you can go outside and pass by all kinds of street level retail. (ok a quiznos, a chevy's, a rock-bottom, a ups store, etc, so not interesting retail, but definitely not a dead zone - and rock bottom used to have wed 1 (2? 3?) dollar happy hour drafts)
So, I think as long as you have both pedestrian options, you're design is OK.
The sky bridges are not for retail, or random pedestrian "through-traffic". They are there on upper floors so that apartment buildings being built on multiple blocks can function as one building from a resident's viewpoint. New streets, like I and 10th streets are being rebuilt to break up the super-block that now exists. However, for cost reasons, the developer likely doesn't want to have to build multiple amenities so that each building has their own pool, gym etc.
If they didn't build skybridges, leasing would be harder in the building where you have to go downstairs, across the street, and back up an elevator in your flip flops and bathing suit just to go to the pool. May sound stupid, but people think that way and it effects the developer/owner's bottom line.
Comments closed April 02, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I don't know about skybridges but in Moscow there are lots of underground passages beneath the major roads and I've always found them to be great. They are convenient (especially since drivers there don't stop for people), tend to have small shops in them, and useful. I don't find that they cause the trouble mentioned in the linked article. One drawback is that they, at least as found in Moscow, are not easily accessed for the disabled and bikes, but over all they work pretty well.
Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | March 19, 2008 1:38 PM