4 ms·

I spent some time last century living in Toronto, a moderately large North American city. The main street of the neighbourhood in which I lived was a former str

by bregma 6y ago

I spent some time last century living in Toronto, a moderately large North American city. The main street of the neighbourhood in which I lived was a former streetcar route crowded with small human-scale shops on the north side, and a church with a parking lot and some large office blocks on the south side. The north side was always crowded, the south side was always empty. It was obvious where people preferred to walk. The same thing could be seen in the downtown core. Developers had torn down a quarter mile of the west side of the main shopping street and build a huge indoor shopping mall with virtually no street engagement except for a parking lot entrance midway. The east side of the street maintained its human-scale former streetcar-street landscape. Pedestrians would crowd both sides of the street above and below the mall, but only the east side in the stretch with the mall. It was obvious where people preferred to walk. It's about human scale and human engagement. If you want to attract people, make it for them. Not for cars, not for architect's egos, not for political idiology. It's really just that simple.

LargeWu 6y ago
This sounds a lot like downtown Minneapolis. In the 70's they went all in on the skyway system - a series of enclosed walkways over streets that went through the second floor of many buildings. The result is that all of the retail and amenities got pushed to the interiors of these buildings, and the facades were reduced to featureless stretches, save for a few particular streets (Hennepin and Nicollet). I admit when I worked downtown that I enjoyed not having to go outside in the winter, but much of downtown lacks charm and utility.
- NaOH 6y ago
  The 99% Invisible podcast discussed some of the effects of the skyway just last week. https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/beneath-the-skyway https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/beneath-the-skyway
  - LargeWu 6y ago
    Nice find, I agree with a lot of it. I'm not sure I would be in favor of tearing them down; they are just soooooo nice in the winter, which is long. But the street level needs to be rehabilitated.
sandworm101 6y ago
There is some basic math that can make a pedestrian downtown difficult. A walking person needs the resource of space, time in the pathway. So take the number of employees per square foot of office space (~200 sf per employee) to get an estimate of the total number of people in a downtown area. If we assume they each need to commute in/out each day we need a system of movement that can accommodate that number. Even if they are all elite joggers willing to run a couple miles each day, there is only so much street before people have to be relegated to tunnels/bridges. Depending on the office density, there are likely a great many cities where pedestrian commutes are physically impossible for the majority (London, NYC). Either they live downtown or we must move them in/out by faster mechanical means. This is actually a very studied problem in pedestrian-dominated areas such as stadiums, airports and theme parks. There is a breaking point when the numbers get so big that you simply have to haul people to/from the perimeter entrances. I'm sure that Disney works from some very exact specifications.
- ant6n 6y ago
  Uh, firstly, have you heard of this invention called public transit. Or this other invention called a bike? Also, this comparison to crowds around stadiums is bizarre. Cars use up more space than pedestrians, so it is possible to commue by car, then it is possible to commute on foot - at least as far as crowding is concerned.
  - sandworm101 6y ago
    Did I say car? I said "by faster mechanical means". That would be bikes/busses/trains/helicopters/escalators and everything else mechanical as in mechanisms as in everything not-pedestrian, a big field.
    - ant6n 6y ago
      Neither pedestrian crowding nor travel distance is an issue in walkable cities, because public transit and cycling is compatible with a walkable city. There is nothing difficult about it, there exist thousands of walkable cities. Another concept you may learn about is „mixed used neighborhoods“. It turns out you dont have to separate out working and residential areas, this will reduce travel distances. A related concept is the „polycentric city“.
Jedd 6y ago
> I spent some time last century living in Toronto, a moderately large North American city. The main street of the neighbourhood in which I lived was a former streetcar route crowded with small human-scale shops on the north side, and a church with a parking lot and some large office blocks on the south side. The north side was always crowded, the south side was always empty. It was obvious where people preferred to walk. I'm in Sydney, AU - I've never been to Toronto, and know only that it's much further from the equator than Sydney is. Even in the mild climate of Sydney, I've noticed myself and others favouring the south sides of streets in winter here, simply because it receives more natural light & warmth. For any given street, there's probably a handful of other candidate explanations for one side of a street being more favoured. It may well be an abundance of shops - if I want to amble, that would (all other factors aside) rate it higher. If I wanted to get somewhere, then I'd eschew a store-dense route, to avoid the myriad amblers that would slow me down.

by bregma 6y ago

LargeWu 6y ago

This sounds a lot like downtown Minneapolis. In the 70's they went all in on the skyway system - a series of enclosed walkways over streets that went through the second floor of many buildings. The result is that all of the retail and amenities got pushed to the interiors of these buildings, and the facades were reduced to featureless stretches, save for a few particular streets (Hennepin and Nicollet). I admit when I worked downtown that I enjoyed not having to go outside in the winter, but much of downtown lacks charm and utility.

NaOH 6y ago
The 99% Invisible podcast discussed some of the effects of the skyway just last week. https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/beneath-the-skyway https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/beneath-the-skyway
- LargeWu 6y ago
  Nice find, I agree with a lot of it. I'm not sure I would be in favor of tearing them down; they are just soooooo nice in the winter, which is long. But the street level needs to be rehabilitated.

sandworm101 6y ago

There is some basic math that can make a pedestrian downtown difficult. A walking person needs the resource of space, time in the pathway. So take the number of employees per square foot of office space (~200 sf per employee) to get an estimate of the total number of people in a downtown area. If we assume they each need to commute in/out each day we need a system of movement that can accommodate that number. Even if they are all elite joggers willing to run a couple miles each day, there is only so much street before people have to be relegated to tunnels/bridges. Depending on the office density, there are likely a great many cities where pedestrian commutes are physically impossible for the majority (London, NYC). Either they live downtown or we must move them in/out by faster mechanical means. This is actually a very studied problem in pedestrian-dominated areas such as stadiums, airports and theme parks. There is a breaking point when the numbers get so big that you simply have to haul people to/from the perimeter entrances. I'm sure that Disney works from some very exact specifications.

ant6n 6y ago
Uh, firstly, have you heard of this invention called public transit. Or this other invention called a bike? Also, this comparison to crowds around stadiums is bizarre. Cars use up more space than pedestrians, so it is possible to commue by car, then it is possible to commute on foot - at least as far as crowding is concerned.
- sandworm101 6y ago
  Did I say car? I said "by faster mechanical means". That would be bikes/busses/trains/helicopters/escalators and everything else mechanical as in mechanisms as in everything not-pedestrian, a big field.
  - ant6n 6y ago
    Neither pedestrian crowding nor travel distance is an issue in walkable cities, because public transit and cycling is compatible with a walkable city. There is nothing difficult about it, there exist thousands of walkable cities. Another concept you may learn about is „mixed used neighborhoods“. It turns out you dont have to separate out working and residential areas, this will reduce travel distances. A related concept is the „polycentric city“.

Jedd 6y ago

> I spent some time last century living in Toronto, a moderately large North American city. The main street of the neighbourhood in which I lived was a former streetcar route crowded with small human-scale shops on the north side, and a church with a parking lot and some large office blocks on the south side. The north side was always crowded, the south side was always empty. It was obvious where people preferred to walk. I'm in Sydney, AU - I've never been to Toronto, and know only that it's much further from the equator than Sydney is. Even in the mild climate of Sydney, I've noticed myself and others favouring the south sides of streets in winter here, simply because it receives more natural light & warmth. For any given street, there's probably a handful of other candidate explanations for one side of a street being more favoured. It may well be an abundance of shops - if I want to amble, that would (all other factors aside) rate it higher. If I wanted to get somewhere, then I'd eschew a store-dense route, to avoid the myriad amblers that would slow me down.