Downtown tunnel/"underground cities"/skywalk systems are literally everything urbanists seem to want--a pedestrian-oriented true "walkable city", linking commercial and residential buildings together, but they hate them. Why?
I am not familiar with this battle, but it's probably because "urbanists" think everything has to look like the 10 block radius around their north european youth hostel where they stayed on spring break and they probably don't have tunnels in that part of amsterdamDon't assume everything they believe makes sense, they're not in the business of logic
>>1990594I don't know. They're always going on and on about giving people "choices" as to how they can around in cities, but they're either indifferent to or actively oppose skywalks & pedestrian tunnels.I really do think it's because these systems aren't what urbanists personally wanted, which is some kind of Yuro-lite renovation of their city >>1990596
Urbanists we need you in here, let us know what's up
>>1990594my city has almost 10 miles of skyways. they're good for people who live or work in the buildings. thats about it. there is little floor retail in the downtown area because the foot traffic isn't there, its inside on the 2nd floor. the skyways are privately owned so one building can screw with the whole system if they want to open late.
>>1990594oh i love underground "cities" there's two i'm aware of here in chicago and i just found out two or three more looking for pictures of the Pedway. There's also Millennium Station
>>1990599Hang on, I'm four whiskeys deep so I'm probably retarded enough to think like an urbanist...>It's indoors, I need fresh air and wide open spaces >There's no bike lane>If I go outside, I can still see people owning cars and GM lives rent free in my head >These tunnels/catwalks are too small-scale, any distance longer than a few blocks is just too much to walk, and there's undesirable people in here I don't want to interact with, and there's not enough market for a grocery store to stay in business so it's a food desert, and this whole idea kinda suc--UHHHHHHHHH I MEAN TRUE WALKABILITY HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED!
>>1990596>>1990594urbanists don't hate them and the reason they are contentious is many are built through private property, take people away from the street during the middle of the day and empty out at night. in a place like SK they are necessary because they hate building sidewalks and ped paths for some reason so they just put tunnels under every road.
i dunno op, let me just ask the howling, screaming ghosts inside my skull, incorporate their gibbering into my worldview, then get mad and post wojaks at anybody who disagrees
>>1990594>>1990597>>1990599i don't think there's any urbanists that oppose skywalks or tunnels like these, they are against urban road overpasses/underpasses though. difference is the former is built for the benefit and convenience of pedestrians, while the latter is built solely to increase traffic flow by making pedestrians take unnecessarily circuitous routes and banishing them from the street.
>>1990647>they hate building sidewalks and ped paths for some reason so they just put tunnels under every road.You say this like it's some pedestrian ghetto, but aren't your kind always screeching about how being near cars reduces life expectancy, so you need alternative viaducts? Maybe you should just admit that you hate people being able to drive.
>>1990692>muh cages are dangerous murder machines>uhhhh nooo, don't isolate pedestrians from cars, i need something to complain about to justify my tyrannical hatred of private transportation
>>1990695It's more like they just hate people. That's it. You can tell by their views on how to improve public transportation which basically amount to "get rid of people who don't look like me or who need a ramp, and eliminate all the stops that make it useful to anyone but me" (actual recommendation by one of their gods, not NJB but that elon levy blogger)The "fuck cars" thing is just to make them sound less like incels.
>>1990594They're fine in concept. It's more that many of them are built as either an unintended afterthought or a IKEA showroom level maze, actively designed to shuffle you through as much retail as possible. Regardless of which of the two, the result is usually a system that makes a 10 minute walk take 15-20 minutes, if you you already know the route you are trying to go. If you don't know the route you are trying to take, you are turbo fucked.If you built these as an actual street system but underground, with straight lines you can look straight down and see where they go, and consistent wayfinding (even just take an existing one, draw a colored line on the floor, and say this is 'the red line and it transits buildings north-south'), then it'd be great and unanimously beloved.So yeah, build better ones and people will like them more.And they have strong advantages in places like Canada, where snow can make walking around outdoors awful temporarily.
>>1990692>making pedestrians take unnecessarily circuitous routes and banishing them from the street.They don't have to take them. Sidewalks still exist. I thought your side wanted to give people choices?>>1990703>actively designed to shuffle you through as much retail as possiblePedestrian only streets to get people shuffling through retail: :)Pedestrian only skywalks to get people shuffling through retail: >:(
>>1990594I actually like them. I think it's a cool way to increase density of high development areas, and frankly I just think it's cool to be there. However they do have some significant urban design issues depending on how and where they are developed.Built in order to inconvenience pedestrians for the convenience of carsBuilt in order to avoid creating green spaceDoes not typically create public space, you still aren't allowed to hang out in any common area like you would a park or city squareEntrances spaced out strangely, making them an inefficient way to travel on footTypically used to connect commuting areas, meaning that they are often over crowded during peak commute but actually producing less foot traffic to businesses.Needs to be treated with an eye towards significant safety aspects, as fire or flooding in a lowered confined space can quickly get out of hand. Nothing new there, no more than any high rise, but it's something that the space and the emergency services must be equipped for.
Shitty bait thread again from this same guy
>>1990703>actively designed to shuffle you through as much retail as possibleThat's what most urban planners want for sidewalks also.
>>1990772I haven't made any threads in a while beyond this one. What are you talking about?
>>1990775nta but how did you know he was thinking of you when he wrote "same guy"t. the schizo he was probably referring to
>>1990594OP pic isn't awful, but trying to use it to paint all pedestrian tunnels as good is disingenuous, and even in that best case scenario they still have problems.To state the obvious, American governments never give adequate funding for pedestrian infrastructure, so if one even gets approved it's not going to be a nice underground mall, it's going to be a dark, dilapidated shit pit to get mugged in.Second, they slow down pedestrian travel by convoluting the direction of travel, not to mention they aren't very accessible for people with disabilities and bikes.Yes, it's faster than trying to move through the roads normally, but it's slower than if car traffic was moved around pedestrians.With the speeds cars can reach, a small diversion makes a minimal impact on travel time, while it's far more pronounced for pedestrians, which is why they should be given priority for the more direct route.Assuming that the path does have development for commerce or other uses, you face the immediate problem that if you want to scale the infrastructure, it gets expensive fast because you have to dig up more land without disturbing the existing tunnel.In contrast, building pedestrian infrastructure on the surface is much easier because those buildings can just be made taller to improve density.The idea that pedestrians have to be diverted around traffic is just a reinforcement of the mindset that cars rule the land, but what difference does it make if you're on the surface or in a tunnel when you're spending all your time enclosed in a car? Meanwhile, having access to sunlight and open air is far more significant to the quality of pedestrian travel.In summary, the surface is much more efficiently used on the pedestrian space and businesses, so the roads are what should be moved underground. Moving people underground to make way for more road sprawl is stupid and narcissistic, and even if you do the people are going to get a hobo murder tunnel, not an 'underground city'.
>>1990782All of these are overblown or are "problems" that only exist in your mind.>The idea that pedestrians have to be diverted around traffic is just a reinforcement of the mindset that cars rule the landThe sidewalks still exist anon.>so the roads are what should be moved undergroundWeren't you just complaining about scalability?
>>1990725>Pedestrian only streets to get people shuffling through retail: :)>streets>Pedestrian only skywalks to get people shuffling through retail: >:(>skywalkIf you bothered to stop and think for two seconds, you'd see the answer: Public vs Private space. City streets and squares are public places. I can go there to hang out with friends without being asked to leave because I didn't buy anything. Skywalks necessarily require access to the buildings they connect, which aren't private property. Mall but underground, or any mall really, is also private property with the same issue.Since cities are already dense places, there's not much need for private cars except for suburbanites who drive in. My position is that those suburbanites should be charged market rate for the land their vehicles occupy inside the city and the pollution they bring. If suburbanites want to enjoy the city without living in it, and don't want to pay to bring their cars into the city, they can take public transit.
>>1990799Just more problems you invented on the spot and which don't exist in reality.Bonus: underlying hatred of people who can afford to own cars
>>1990800>anon's going to break into a closed building to meet his gf on the skywaySee you on the evening news
>>1990801The sidewalks and parks still exist.
>>1990702>>1990695I never said any of that and you need to get your schizo ass off this board because it's clear you aren't here to discuss anything related to transportation but just to whine about le evil yimbys and urbanists (you never seem to talk about enjoying biking or other transportation)
>>1990807If you want to reply angrily to my other comments and call me a boomer cagetroll who doesn't know what's in my interests, here are a few of my last ones from other threads, you're welcome to jump into any of those threads with your hot takes on why everyone is a stupid nimby except you and I will happily discuss your bad takes from a biking or mass transit angle. Or you could start compiling a dossier on me since you seem like the kind of fellow who nurses a grudge:>>1990708>>1990720>>1990747>>1990791>>1990126
>>1990782>they aren't very accessible for people with disabilities and bikesOh my gosh, you've just awoken a great need in me for tunnel/skywalk bike paths.I know there is that one photo of an enclosed market with a bike path running through it. But I want to see bikes creeping through The Path in Toronto at a leisurely pace.Thank you for uplifting my imagination to new heights.
>>1990782>the people are going to get a hobo murder tunnel, not an 'underground city'The streets are where the homeless hang out, whereas the tunnels are operated by commercial entities and are patrolled by security. Plus it makes sense from a building perspective--all these buildings have basements (often with lobbies) so why not just cross streets and make connections? (A road tunnel would require a lot more infrastructure in terms of moving sewage/power lines, etc.)
>>1990807>you never seem to talk about enjoying biking>/n/ - Biking and Mass Transit
>>1990828you clearly hate trains too so I am not sure what's left, planes? do you hate those too?
I'm an urbanist and I think these things are awesome.Presumably urbanists don't like these because it's hard to commit crime there. Urbanists ahve a onions boner for crime
>>1990832It's possible to both like a thing and also think it isn't a substitute for reducing car dependency and increasing the convenience of public transit/active transit in urban areas.
>>1990833we need both of course. But they complement each other. These undeground areas are often integrated into other walkable environments and transit
>>1990594>but they hate them. Why?Because they can't zip between pedestrians on their bicycles pretending that they are not invasive species.
>>1990799>Mall but underground, or any mall really, is also private property with the same issue.This is the good thing. malls are private spaces so you can't act like a monkey here. This kills lefty monkey.Mall is Ideal pedestrian street: clean, safe, no bad weather, nor dogs, no cyclists.P.S. in US they allowed to act like monkeys in the malls and that collapsed American Mall.
>>1990594The toronto system is hugeTruly an underground city
>>1990594They suffer from a combination of problems of the traditional CBD/office district and the generic shopping mall. Like the office district, everything is designed around a 9-5 office worker who shows up early in the day, gets something quick for lunch, then leaves relatively early on. There is little draw if one isn't already in the area for work, which means relatively little foot traffic (and traffic concentrated at a narrow band of times at that), which limits the sort of restaurants/businesses that will become tenants, which limits the attraction of the area even more. Toronto's PATH is one of the largest examples (3.7 million square feet/30 km length) and demonstrates the point. It mostly connects office buildings and provides a way for office workers to get in and out that isn't exposed to the environment. https://www.toronto.ca/explore-enjoy/visitor-toronto/path-torontos-downtown-pedestrian-walkway/Despite being almost 40% larger than First Canadian Place by area (which has tenancy greater than 10,000), it only has 4,600 jobs according to Toronto's official web page for it. Like generic shopping malls, they are commercially-oriented: in many cases segments have private owners/operators who only want customers around. There's not focus on activities/scenery that would make it work as a third place, where one might go to spend a weekend afternoon. The aesthetics (and lighting - lighting strongly affects perception of a location) are that of a mall, with all that entails in terms of attraction. https://youtu.be/P-YpouT-Af8If there were some other compelling reason to be in the area to drive high traffic volumes, then many of the above problems would be alleviated. Taipei City Mall branches off the main rail station in Taipei, and has high traffic and a variety of stores. The area around Shinjuku Station leverages the station and the employment centers/destinations built up around it to populate its extensive underground segments.
>underground city thread>nothing but underground malls
>>1990905>There's not focus on activities/scenery that would make it work as a third placeI would disagree. Going by Reddit's definitions this always seem to be bars and pubs, which are commercial tenants. Rarely do I see talk of parks or churches being the "third place".>are that of a mall, with all that entails in terms of attractionAgain, if we're going to go by traditional urbanist fare, the "ideal city" always seems to be very similar to malls. In idolizing Europe, there's the narrow pedestrian side streets with stores angled toward tourists (not locals).>Exploring Crystal City Underground WalkwaysIn addition to Crystal City connecting some residential buildings (which Houston's tunnels also do) Crystal City once boasted a (small) Safeway supermarket.>some other compelling reason to be in the area to drive high traffic volumesThe Toronto PATH network connects to CF Toronto Eaton Centre, which is a full mall. While CF Toronto Eaton Centre hasn't done well in recent years, as both Sears and its replacement Nordstrom have both closed, A-tier malls tend to offer more entertainment options, including ice rinks and movie theaters. Sapporo JR Towerin Japan features integration with the mass transit system (and the mass transit stations are often jam-packed with nearby stores and restaurants; it's the real money maker for the Japanese transit companies) and a movie theater as well.
>>1990909> Rarely do I see talk of parks or churches being the "third place".they are considered that and also where the fuck are you putting a church or park in an enclosed walkway?
Would underground cities count as liminal spaces? Like pic related
>>1990939literally by definition yes as they are places used for travelling through.
>>1990909>Going by Reddit's definitions this always seem to be bars and pubsReddit is useless, as all know. I do mean something like a park, an amusement center, a well-landscape plaza, a scenic backdrop, something where a variety of demographics might regularly congregate without any specific purpose in mind.>the "ideal city" always seems to be very similar to mallsMalls don't typically have residential components, or public amenities, or any reason why one would visit other than shopping. Thus one of the causes of the retail apocalypse: many malls couldn't make in-person shopping better than doing it online. Malls have more restrictions upon permitted activities and allowed tenants, and (often) high dependency upon anchor tenants, which undercuts resiliency. And they often look like >>1990939or >>1990601which don't hold a candle to a well-crafted streetscape. >Crystal City once boasted a (small) Safeway supermarket.No different than an anchor tenant. The Shops at Santa Anita in Arcadia, California added a 99 Ranch Market, but that was a consequence of its continued success in attracting Asians. > CF Toronto Eaton Centre, which is a full mall.Yes. I've been there. It's got higher density (and variety) of stores, and thus does far better than what's in PATH. It was also my impression that most visitors came through the entrance on Yonge street, not through PATH. It also seems likely that even most of those who arrive in Toronto via Union Station, then visit CF Eaton don't travel there via PATH. >Sapporo JR Towerin Japan features integration with the mass transit systemThe JRs own the land around their stations and have a direct interest in developing them. With traffic and land value/scarcity, multistory (and underground) construction makes a lot of sense and can create a vibrant area.
>>1990990>through PATHOne of the main advantages of the Path is it connects Union Station and 2 or 3 other subway stations with all of the financial district and extended area through an underground network.For a city like Toronto that gets cold winters, you can take transit to Union Station and walk to your office without ever stepping outside. As a guy who used to be a lawfirm courier downtown toronto, the Path was a godsend in the winter. As one who used it frequently, I also learned a lot of the none marked passage ways and shortcuts through utility corridors, through at grade connections between buildings etc. The shops are really just there to service the buildings above them
>>1990939>liminal spaceswhat's with the overlap between annoying redditoids who found a new word, and urbanistslet me guess you sub to /r/vexillology too
>>1990897I tried to write a Metro 2033 copy set here once. I should revisit that.
>>1990927No one's banning you from the surface. The underground adds a whole second layer to the city. It also makes the downtown area (or other similar dense area) even more of a novelty. Even if amenities are convenient in the suburbs (and they are), those can't stack up being able to go out to eat or go shopping without even going outside.
>>1990990>Malls don't typically have residential componentsAnd that's why these underground networks have a lot more flexibility, by basically combining street-level stuff with malls (and can integrate with actual malls, like the CF Toronto Eaton Centre example above, though Houston's doesn't have much in the way of downtown malls unless you count The Shops at Houston Center, which is basically a food court now).>which don't hold a candle to a well-crafted streetscape.With all due respect, I don't believe a "well-crafted streetscape" happens organically, usually brought upon by developers and/or owners working together, with the government sometimes taking a role. Almost every example of "well-crafted streetscape" and "catering to tourists/people with money" is almost a perfect circle.>many malls couldn't make in-person shopping better than doing it onlineYou can also kind of see that with downtown shopping too. Even when malls were at their peaks, department stores maintained their flagship store in most cities. While many had closed over the years prior, in 2005-2006 Macy's gained downtown stores in Chicago (Marshall Field's), Portland (Meier & Frank), Houston (Foley's), Pittsburgh (Kaufmann's), and Miami (Burdines). Sears also had a number of stand-alone downtown locations, but like Macy's these closed as the chains deteriorated.>No different than an anchor tenant. The Shops at Santa Anita in Arcadia, California added a 99 Ranch Market, but that was a consequence of its continued success in attracting Asians.When it comes to malls, the anchor tenants always had an exterior entrance (sometimes they'd have an entrance just right inside, most of the mall Kmart stores did this). The Safeway in Crystal City closed in 2005 (and from further reading, did have an exterior entrance and parking area despite its smaller-than-average size at 17k square feet), with the lost parking cited as part of its closure.
>>1991064>The shops are really just there to service the buildings above themThe idea of an underground city is essentially a lot of buildings sharing their amenities and cross-pollinating. If an office tower has a food court on the lower level, it can now collect cross-traffic from other buildings that don't have food courts, or allow access to other retail. A drug store below an apartment building can also share with the buildings around it.
>>1990990>Malls don't typically have residential components, or public amenities, or any reason why one would visit other than shopping.>other than shopping.Cinema, restaurants, arcades, fitness centers, barbershops, beauty salons.>Malls have more restrictions upon permitted activities Yeah filthy dogs and cyclists are not allowed in. And this is good thing.
>>1990594We have exactly one downtown tunnel and one skywalk system where I live. The tunnel is in an otherwise walkable part of the town and everybody likes it. Basically, extra space for businesses and pedestrians. There's enough pedestrian traffic to fill both the tunnel and the streets above it.The skywalk was planned during the 1960's automobile psychosis. It was meant to replace sidewalks and make vehicular traffic faster. It was implemented on an insufficient scale, it doesn't work for pedestrians, and driving isn't any faster. Nowadays it's thought of as a failed experiment.In conclusion I don't think you can expect shit that costs way more money than sidewalks to replace sidewalks on a reasonable scale. The city needs to be walkable before you add the fancy stuff.
>>1991179Google mall.
>>1990695the only one doing anything like screeching is you, friend. please be nicer/less stupid please.
>>1991236Please return to reddit and never come back, you pompous two faced twat.
>>1991182>'Hurts my heart': Community reacts to Century III Mall demolition>Mall retailer considers Chapter 11 bankruptcy as cash dwindles>Marshall County Officials take a stand against Marshalltown mall owners during power outage...Back in November, the mall’s ownership team, Kohan Investment Group, didn’t pay its utility bill. The resulting power outage is still ongoing.>A new real estate trend? Shopping malls converted into residential units in South Florida>As more stores leave, Genesee Valley Center owner in early talks about redevelopmentYeah, not helping the case.
>>1990800>dear urbanists: stop seething over being so poor as to be unable to afford a car>also, d-dear urbanists: p-please stop making it more expensive to own a car, r-roar!lmao, based internet schizo
