This coverage is made possible by grants from the Central Corridor Funders Collaborative and The McKnight Foundation.
Videos explore life in Twin Cities' skyways
MinnPost photo by Steve Berg
Urban designer Jan Gehl describes Minneapolis as a relic of the 1970s that won't be able to revive itself without tearing down its skyways.
Skyways are a conundrum. Minneapolis and, to a lesser degree, St. Paul can't seem to live without them. Yet these downtowns can't fully thrive as 21st century cities as long as skyways continue to pull energy and vitality off of the sidewalks.
The celebrated urban designer Jan Gehl has gone so far as to describe Minneapolis as a relic of the 1970s that won't be able to revive itself without tearing down its skyways.
Short of a 9.0 earthquake, that's unlikely to happen. And so it was smart of Architecture Minnesota Magazine to launch a video competition aimed at exploring the impact of skyways on urban life. The entries — 24 of them — came from a wide swath of designers, technicians, entertainers and video hobbyists. The top six were featured at an exuberant event at the Walker Art Center on Thursday night.
Second-story zombies
All six were imaginative and delightful to the eye and ear. The big crowd had a ball, especially during a 3D hip-hop offering from Benjamin Lindau and Keon Chi ("Don't be a hamster / be-be a man"), which, I think, celebrated the sidewalk option. Another favorite was James Tucker's droll archeological spoof, "Urban Mysteries," in which future scientists discover the ruins of skyways and speculate on their function and meaning.
(It brought back memories of Timid Video Theater's brilliant parody "Descent of Man" produced in the 1977 by Jeff Strate and L.K. Hanson.)
Tucker's film won the Viewers' Choice award as the audience favorite. But the jury awarded the Grand Prize to Jim Davy's "Mindless Sky," a video in which a dead-end skyway fills up with yellow zombies. That's the film that came closest to making an actual point: Skyways don't lead downtowns where they need to go.
Living with skyways
Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak made a similar point in a rousing introductory speech. Few mayors are as in tune with design trends as Rybak. While skyways probably saved downtown in the 1960s and '70s, he noted, by offering a comfortable alternative to suburban office parks, they don't fit the formula for vibrant, active cities that people now expect. "They're like the movie 'Night of the Living Dead,'" he joked. "If we could translate [skyway pedestrian traffic] to the street we'd be an incredibly energetic place."
Rybak didn't advocate the demise of skyways; but he did suggest stair towers that would link them to the streets. Under Rybak, the city has been pursuing multiple strategies for energizing street-level pedestrian life. Greener, cleaner streets, new parks and an emphasis on transit and bicycles are in various stages of development. But lively streets will be a challenge as long as skyways prevail.
In retrospect, the videos were fun. They showed cool views of the city, from within and without the skyways, and they reflected the moods of life on both first and second levels. But they didn't resolve the essential dilemma that skyways present.
Chris Hudson, editor of Architecture Minnesota magazine agreed on that point. "The videos were more fun than prescriptive," he said. "But I hope they launch a deeper conversation."
More like this
- Urban designers: Minneapolis should dump skyways
- Why the path to pretty city sidewalks leads to the private sector
- Cleaner and greener: A private 'takeover' transforms downtown streets
- Is the world more benign after snow? A paean to skyways and downtown pleasures
- What makes a city a good place to walk?
Recent Stories
Most Commented
-
27 comments
-
22 comments
-
19 comments
-
18 comments
-
15 comments
Comments (17)
I'm not optimistic. As long as the skyways exist, people will use them. It's just easier. I work in the North Loop and am not connected to the system, but even when I was, I made a point of using the sidewalks, even in winter. But that made me a rarity, if not an oddball. Most people are not going to give up the skyways. Stairways to street level will not work. I bet not 10% of people would use them.
Minneapolis sure screwed things up, first by indiscriminately leveling the Gateway district, then with the skyways.
Don't get me started on the Gateway. When I tell people that 50 years ago, we leveled dozens of historic city blocks that are STILL being used half a century later for no higher purpose than surface parking, they can hardly believe it.
I like the skyways. When I worked downtown, the skyways opened up a wide array of lunch options that would otherwise have gone unexplored, had it involved bundling up to walk four blocks outside.
I'm not entirely sure what the skyway critics are missing. Its not that a vibrant street scene is missing, its merely been moved from the street. OK, after hours, the streets are mostly bare, with the exception of Nicollet Mall, which has a sidewalk scene. Is that necessary on every street? I think not.
The skyways are there because we have brutal winters here, and it is much easier for everyone that works downtown to use the skyway than it is to go outdoors, it is the extreme-ness of our environment that dictates the use of the skyway. Secondly, in summer, warm spring days, even warm winter days, people DO go outside and enjoy being outdoors downtown.
When you refer to people as "celebrated" (as though they are a genius and have the answers to everything), then you know whatever they say will not be to your liking, much less be very practical.
There's nothing wrong with criticizing something to point out it's flaws and the ways in which it could be made better. But that's not the same as handing over the reins to someone who is unknown to most of us.
I wonder why it is, we demonize the skyways. After being in that camp for a long time, I now have a really hard time with the idea that "Skyways don't lead downtowns where they need to go".
I understand that sentiment resonates with the Mayor's words, but it's difficult for me to support the idea of downtown Minneapolis getting distracted by the idea of creating physical exterior connections to the street. That won't inherently add vitality to the streets.
Skyways allow those in downtown to connect in weather that would detour most. In my "office park" I don't leave my building, except by car. In the woven fabric of skyways, I can engage in a wide variety of activities within a quick walk (regardless of the weather. This is what makes downtown unique to it's suburban counterparts.
Skyways aren't Minneapolis' problem for "active street life". Skyways ARE the street life.
If you want to identify what IS holding Minneapolis back, it starts with a systemic issue. The way we've shift in the transportation infrastructure from trolley to freeway played a crucial role in the quick flight from the urban core to suburban residential life. The urban density and lifestyles that used to support that infrastructure disappeared when the bus companies tore out the rail lines.
Another issue is that the urban fabric of Minneapolis (historically) caters mostly to the working-commuter class. What do I mean by this?
Minneapolis is NOT Portland. Portland, OR is about the most walkable city I've been to. And while there are shops engaged on the street, they are thriving best in areas that cater to both residents and commuters.
Live+Work+Family=Vitality is the critical formula that is being missed by this distraction of saying that "the skyways are the problem."
The city has made tremendous steps to reclaim lost territory by reclaiming the riverfront. Target Field will be a huge driver for change in the warehouse district. Now the city has the opportunity to reshape downtown even further on the East side by re-envisioning the land around the Metrodome.
Minneapolis AND St. Paul will both benefit by continuing to foster life-cycle housing and services that nurture our community at all ages and not just a 24-hour downtown dependent on "street life".
Don't take my skyways away! You may be able bodied on the street in the winter...I am not.
Skyway and street level are both essential in the harsh Minnesota climate. Skyways are important to attract population from other climates. Warm weather populations resist relocating to Minnesota because of the harsh weather. Additionally, there are segments of the population that need or prefer skyways including seniors, ADA/disabilities, office workers, convenience shoppers, families, transit connectors, connections to parking ramps etc.
We must design new and redesign old skyway systems for modern design aesthetic, simplicity in wayfinding and public art.
Many very thoughtful comments here. Refreshing! What about other cities? Houston has tunnels, which are useful to urban pedestrians during the sweltering summer because Houston is built on a swamp. Is it a relic of the '70s too?
Great post, Ryan! For starters, I respect Steve Berg's efforts to get some of these issues in the foreground. But he could do more by publicizing the venues where meaningful discussions about the skyway future are being held. Videotect was great fun but it was no substitute for a respectful and thoughtful airing of community concerns.
Rybak says that the discussion has started. WHere? Who's talking there? Sam Grabarski has stated in the Downtown Journal that there are groups that have anticipated the 50th anniversary of the skyways with serious discussion about their place in the cityscape. Again, where? Who? From the quotes I have read here, and in Berg's other post, we get to choose between hit-and-run critics and retail consultants (who think that the skyways are actually interfering with good consumer habits!) Yikes thats not my idea of a deep dialog on urban quality of life. (A shout out to Judith Martin who concedes that downtown is not a quality of life focus in Minneapolis...the parks and riverfront are!)
So here is my poem giving voice to Rybak and others zombie laments:
I think that I shall never say
the Sky's more lively as a way
Than Street, sidewalk or alley.
The walking dead through glassy shell
traverse their AC'd path from Hell
to desk and back. Don't dally
In the chromed Intestine coiled
Midst city belly. Surging, roiled
clots of souls on furlough splay
Across the grid. What cheer or joy
is, is not about the second story.
The first story's yet untold today.
I'd like to see Jan Grehl pick up her office and work here full time during our winter months and then call them an outdated fad.
As for Rybak, I think this guy sometimes puts utopia design things like artistic water fountains over practicality of the times.
The same outside vibrancy that exists during the summer which I see plenty of by the way, exists almost exactly the same during the winter, just one floor up. Yeah it may be more point A to B oriented but it's basically the same. People walking, talking, and eating. If we didn't have them, sorry R.T you're not going to see us taking a leisurely stroll down Marquette on "crisp" January day.
I think the skyways are a unique characteristic of our city. Most importantly they serve as a valued feature for the people that live and work here.
I've got news for Mr. Berg. The skyways are not an "essential dilemma" in our city. The long line of people outside the homeless shelter on Kellogg Boulevard every night is.
Before sky-walk loyalists get their shoe laces tied to the wrong shoe, look up this man Jan Gehl...as he has honestly observed, skyways, as we know them, are an intrusion on the urban landscape of the central marketplace...in this case Nicolet Avenue and what was once a thriving retail center from the first floor up.
Gehl is taking a fresh look and creating or recreating the element of the "human" in a landscape of glass and steel sameness that too often sucks any warmth out of downtown...city spaces that too often look like architectural models suffering from a case of modular dystrophy.
Nobody is going to take away our 'people movers' that stab the soul out of so many city structures that were initially designed for walking, strolling humans rather than syncopated stick people moving efficiently from point A to Point B.
At least read a little about this urbanist with a new twist. Cities are too poor to make the big switch so rest assured, we will still be wrapped in our glass and steel corridors if they continue to be funded as conveyor belts for people...but take another look...people look a little like pigeons under glass; not looking right or left but getting there in a hurry?
Gehl recognizes the human factor as a necessary element in people places, and although those necessary and efficient horizontal, narrow shrouds of glass that rise above Main Street everywhere - skyways get us there and won't go away...but at least if Nicollet invited walkers, strollers with more fountains seating clusters, ; street life renewed, that would be a boost..and too bad sky-walks weren't built up a story, or underground; but too late, too late.
Look up, look down...even if skyways survive to shelter us from the elements, the street scene needs the human touch and this good fellow Gehl is worth exploring if only to break the dreary spell of retro design of the sixties and seventies with that endless flow of glass and steel; high rise and condo that speaks a most dehumanized legacy that needs to reexamine itself?
Gehl is no sad --faced Dane on a precipice but a positive New Urbanist dangling his legs over the sky-walk and saying "To be or not to be"...
The skyway system is a lifeline for my elder parents who live downtown. Literally, it's a lifeline. They walk every day, winter and summer, without fear of falling or suffering the extremes of weather and crumbling infrastructure. My mother fell last year on a broken sidewalk, and the reason she didn't break a bone is her daily exercise. My father, prone to occasional dizzy spells, was able to call for help outside the ATT store near the Baker building.
I find it amazing that the discussion of the skyways by architects and planners centers primarily on aesthetics. Basically, they don't like the walkways blocking the views of their buildings. Entirely sidelined are the realities of a state in which the temperature runs the gamut from 40 below with howling winds, to 100s in the summer with oppressive (and killing) humidity. Can you imagine what would have happened to downtown businesses this winter when the record snowfall kept the sidewalks blocked for days?
It's great to look at a computer-generated model of the "village" and project a Jane Jacobs utopia where everyone is young, monied and healthy and street life includes ample water and bathrooms. And bikepaths and sidewalks sufficient for everyone who wants to use them. But ignoring reality doesn't make it go away, and I have to think that the people who deride our city as being stuck in the 70s have spent very little time in the places they want to "fix".
Yes, the skyways are ugly. But they are there for a reason. Beware the experts bearing a master plan for the shiny new future. They are the the ones who brought us the "Gateway", gutted most of historic downtown, thought that modernity and progress meant we should run I-94 through the Rondo neighborhood.
Skyways serve their purpose, but I believe they ultimately have to go. They were built as a reaction to and to stay in competition with indoor suburban malls. The whole frame of reference has changed since then. Besides, there hasn't been a new indoor mall built in the United States since 2005 - they are clearly on their way out.
I wrote an article in the Downtown Journal in 2007 explaining some very sound reasons for incrementally removing skyways. http://www.downtownjournal.com/index.php?&story=10927&page=65&category=5....
First off, a lot of Jan Gehl's observations and opinions are correct. But a nugget of his strategy is sound. In his hometown of Copenhagen, they removed a few parking spaces each year and nobody noticed they were gone. Apply that to the skyways - remove one each year for 50 years and we won't miss them. Think about it.
They are also redundant. We already have a means of pedestrian movement, and it is largely underutilized in downtown. Having a ground level and skyway level reduces the impact of each. Removing skyways would add actual retail value to the ground floor of downtown buildings, as retailers would slowly relocate to the ground level where the pedestrian traffic would be concentrated. I think an argument can be made that building owners wouldn't lose value with the loss of skyways, but rather be enhanced by the overall improved pedestrian environment.
Coupled with current fantastic improvements to downtown street life like the Downtown Impromvenet District, pedicabs, light rail, Target Field and more street vendors, and the possibility of a downtown park, the gradually removing the skyways will only help these and other investments for our downtown, and make it more people-friendly.
Ultimately, downtown Minneapolis is not competing against the 'Dales, but against other global cities. I truly believe skyways hurt us more than they help in terms of that competitiveness.
If we tear out the skyway system, the proponents of that will one day be viewed the way we now view the people who tore out the streetcars. Why remove a viable alternative mode of transportation?
Improving downtown vitality with new parks, pedicabs and street vendors does not require the elimination of the skyways. Pardon the cliche, but if parks are available, people will use them. Skyways won't keep them away. Same for food vendors.
Perhaps most comical is the implication that getting people out of skyways will somehow inspire them to stop focusing merely on where they're going & instead on the world around them. Guess what: there's life in the skyway. Some people engage it, others ignore it; just like on city streets everywhere.
At Belles Architecture, in Rockford, IL-just to the west of the WINDY (and cold) city of Chicago, we would like to believe we have first-hand knowledge of a vibrant downtown, AND the realities of winter. Perhaps Minneapolis just wants to be a different "flavor" City. One without a vibrant street life, BUT... one with a vibrant building and skyway life. In Rockford, we have noticed a trend away from the enclosed Mall--if not the death of the enclosed mall. Certainly the existence of the Mall of America indicates a different attitude in Minnesota than elsewhere. We think a win-win compromise would be the "Bucky" solution. Just put a dome over the entire city. Then Minneapolis could have a vibrant downtown street life with no snow, rain, cold, or heat.
http://www.bellesarchitecture.com
Mr Belles,
To say that we want a "different flavor" is something akin to saying that a someone who's lactose intolerant prefers something other than dairy. It's not that we don't celebrate the warm with the rest of the world, we just have sense not to give in to our climate and let life simply halt.
My wife's family is from Chicago, IL so we routinely travel to your neck of the woods about 5-6 times a year for about 1 week intervals. So from first hand experience, I can say that the winter climate Rockford, IL experiences is much milder compared to MN.
Case in point. I was down there for 2 weeks at the end of Feb to visit family and complete a series of photography projects. In MN when we left we had yet another series of snow falls (I think it ended up to be another of 12"-20"), and we were actually waylaid in Wisconsin because of the same storm system. Once we got to Chicago, there was... maybe an inch or two. By the time I photographed my exteriors, the snow was gone and the air was downright balmy comparatively. I even spent about, an hour or so outside (get this) without gloves. When we returned to MN, we still had about 6"-12" of snow on the ground.
(By the way I hear you've been experiencing life in the 80's in the last week, we hit about 65 in the last few days.)
I'm glad to see that most commenters are in favor of the skyways. The skyways did and do solve a problem in this city: It's just too damn cold in the winter to go out for fun over the lunch hour. Did anyone ask the various merchants with skyway level shops how they feel?