While my post on this website and at Streets.mn suggesting that we gradually remove the skyways from downtown Minneapolis over a 50-year timeline got a couple compliments and a rebuke by Streets.mn's own David Levinson, it was also picked up by the Star Tribune. In that piece, Minneapolis mayor R.T. Rybak was quoted as saying "I don't think we need any more skyways...I don't think they don't help at all." Well, there are 68 comments and counting on the Star Tribune website, most of them over-my-dead-body defenses of skyways. Many are outright angry at the mayor for suggesting they aren't helpful in sub-zero January. I get it! And I expected when quoted in the Star Tribune piece and my own post that I'd hear that. I don't disagree that skyways are comfortable. What is crazy, as Streets.mn's Bill Lindeke points out, an original idea for skyways was that they be open to the elements, and simply grade-separated from those busy streets. Wow! How Corbusian (look it up)! But how interesting that it has been burned in to our folklore that winter weather is the reason for skyways. It isn't. I will say this, though, thank goodness they are enclosed! Skyways would not be so But winter. What a shame one defense of skyways is defense against bitter cold that really only occurs one week or so per year. Is that one week really worth the sacrifice of our sidewalks and public space the other 51 weeks of the year? And the notion that we don't embrace winter is ludicrous! We're Minnesotans! We embrace winter - we ski, we snowmobile, we ice fish, we have the Winter Carnival, the Lakes Loppet and outdoor ice bars. When it is cold, we're out in it, and it's a badge of honor! We traverse sidewalks in all our great urban neighborhoods year-round - Uptown, Grand Avenue, Highland, near northeast, you name it, we're out there. We are outdoors downtown in the winter - Peavey Plaza has ice skating, and we have Holidazzle with sidewalk concessions at Brits! Why not have outdoor fireplaces and more outdoor activities around downtown? Some suggest retrofitting the skyways to make them more easily accessed, like adding glass-enclosed elevators, and outdoor or semi-enclosed stairways or elscalators. These all cost substantial sums of money, and enough is already being spent on skyway construction in the first place, I just don't think a major retrofit is responsible economically. My biggest arguments are these: 1. What if all those millions of dollars spent on skyways had instead been spent on sidewalks, benches, trees, and other public realm improvements that improve the livability of downtown? Just think about it. Instead of spending increased amounts on both, let's cut our losses and focus on the pubic realm from now on. 2. It would be expensive and reckless to "tear down" the skyways right now, and I'd never suggest such a thing. However, I do believe we've built them over 50 years, and let's take the next 50 to remove them gradually. If not in 50 years, at least when they require replacement due to age and deferred maintenance. I cannot argue that skyways aren't comfortable on a cold winter's day, and I will admit they aren't coming down without a fight. I do, however, believe this is a critical aspect of the discussion of our vision for Minneapolis as an urban place in the future. As well, I believe over time our focus will turn more to sidewalks and our public realm, and skyways will fall out of favor, if not for aesthetic reasons then certainly for financial ones. And that's all I care to say about this right now. On to a new topic!

It is a common rule of thumb that stores and malls achieve maximum parking usage on the last Saturday before Christmas. If this is true, then take a look at this photo, taken at 1:30PM on Saturday, December 17th, 2011, of the Target store parking lot in Midtown, at Lake and Hiawatha. It sure seems like we don't need this much parking. This particular Target, which was renovated recently, is located in an area of the city that allows for a lower percentage of trips to be made by car. For one, I suspect the automobile ownership rate is lower in this area on average than many other areas of the Twin Cities. Second, it is located near the Lake Street station of the Hiawatha light rail line, and along Lake Street, a high-frequency bus route. The site is the former location of the Minneapolis Moline farm implement factory, and was redeveloped in the 1970s in to a suburban-style Target, attached interior mall and a grocery store. Like so much 1970s development, it was an excercise in urban awfulness. But, except for the interior mall, the Target and Cub Foods are economically successful, so one cannot argue economic blight, just urban blight. For one thing, with so many people clearly arriving by bus or rail, the fact that the entrance to Target, even after renovation, is still nearly a full block from Lake Street, is a real shame. Along came a light rail service in 2004, and with it a plan to transform the heavily surface-parked big box area in to an urban village. One 80-unit building with ground floor retail, Hiawatha Commons, has been built so far to the north of the Target and Cub parking lot, so progress has been made. Now the clear lack of demand for parking in the Target parking lot indicates the physical potential for an attractive mixed-use building near the northwest corner of Minnehaha and Lake. Retail could work well on the ground floor (after all, there is plenty of parking behind the building!) and the market could support affordable or market rate apartments at that location (a short walk to light rail, Target and two grocery stores, for starters). Clearly we don't need that much surface parking, so why not pursue new development that will improve the character and urbanity of this emerging transit village? Good development at this particular location will set the right tone for the future of the area. Speaking of surface parking, we have this from Gordon Price's Pricetags Blog, showing aerial views of surface parking in various cities. I will always recall my first visit to Portland in 2000, and walking through the downtown on a seemingly endless quest for a surface parking lot. How impressive, I thought.

The following post shares a similar argument as an article I wrote four years ago for the Downtown Journal (in Minneapolis). I was chastised at the time and suppose I will be again. However, with the recent opening of a new, $3 million skyway link to better connect the Accenture tower to adjacent blocks, as well as the new Downtown 2025 Plan taking on the “Skyway Paradox,” I was persuaded to bring it up again. So here goes: Isn't it about time to start removing our skyways? A few years ago, Jen Gehl, a notable and well-respected Danish urbanist, was in town for an Urban Land Institute presentation. He noted downtown Minneapolis was “no longer up to the beat” of other world-class winter cities, blaming the skyways for striking a “defensive posture” against nature. Save for perhaps one bitter cold winter week per year, I couldn’t agree more. It doesn’t make sense to spend more than $1 million per skyway to perpetuate this anti-world class defensive posture. Gehl’s comments made it into the Skyway Conundrum section of the recently-released Downtown 2025 Plan, so someone is listening! While the plan doesn’t suggest removal, at least they admit the problem, and that, my friends, is the first step to recovery. The strategy is simple – it took us 50 years to build our skyway system, so let’s dismantle it gradually over the next 50 years. Remove one skyway per year, and nobody will really notice when they are gone (indeed, many of us won’t be around by then, but our grandchildren will thank us). This strategy follows Gehl’s hometown of Copenhagen, which gradually removed a few parking spaces per year from the central city. According to Gehl, nobody noticed when it was a few per year, and coupled with attention to the public realm, Copenhagen is now a world-class winter city. We can do the same with our skyways (and our parking!). I’m not just saying this because people from around the world believe skyways are a curiosity at best, gerbil tubes at worst. They haven't fundamentally improved or saved Downtown retail, they are expensive to build and they detract heavily from pedestrian life. As well, we need a concerted effort to continually improve the public realm of Downtown. To their credit, the Downtown Improvement District, Downtown Council, CPED, businesses, developers and elected officials are making the pedestrian realm a priority, but there is so much more to do, and skyways are a distraction from that goal. The original intent of the skyways has not panned out. The first skyways were built in the early to mid-1960s largely as a defense against the loss of retailing to the suburbs – an investment to make downtown more like Southdale. Well, that clearly didn't work as a strategy. Retail is a fickle industry, as Downtown boosters well know, and while certainly skyways didn’t cause the loss of department stores and the failure of City Center, the Conservatory, and Block E, I think it’s a fair question to ask did they help? Was it in any way worth the cost? History has shown us that chasing the next big retailer to come downtown isn’t worth the cost or effort, but I’d suggest that an improved public realm is. As for the small skyway retailers, it is simply a function of supply (food, coffee and convenience items) and demand (135,000-plus workers). Most of the retail you now find on our skyway level could slowly be relocated to the street level over time, without any fundamental change in demand. Those 135,000 office workers will still need coffee in the morning, lunch, dry cleaners, banks and convenience goods. In other words, the retailers won’t flee to the suburbs, but there isn’t enough to support two levels of retail. Just look at other world-class downtowns like Chicago’s Loop – they have winter, and I’ve spent weekdays working there in the winter. You just go outside for lunch, on sidewalks, no big deal. I’ve also worked in downtown Minneapolis, and I avoided the skyways out of stubborn pride and the quest for urban serendipity. To all of you downtown Minneapolis workers, I feel your pain, but you, too, will get used to it. After all, under my plan, you’ll likely be retired or working elsewhere before your nearest skyway comes down anyway. Office tenants would not flee, either. Downtown Minneapolis is the best-performing office sector right now, but the primary reason for that is not the skyways, but rather light rail, restaurants, sports facilities, and entertainment – in other words, the center of it all. Skyway removal will not change that, but an improved public realm will enhance it. True, leasing agents will argue that skyway access is an advantage to leasing one building versus another, but that is a circular argument – remove all skyways and the issue will be moot. Remember, each new skyway costs more than a million dollars to construct. Yes, this cost is largely borne of the private sector (the building owners), but the most recent Accenture skyway link cost $3 million. Imagine if we could instead put those millions of dollars towards improving the public realm, like better sidewalks, lighting, planting trees and adding benches, fountains and art? We already have sidewalks, a second set of pedestrian routes is costly and redundant. Skyways bifurcate downtown economically. True, they add value to the second story of buildings, but they reduce value of the ground floor. Remove the skyways and the ground floors will increase in rent and value, and the second stories can be converted back to office in many cases, although some will remain retail. Downtown also gets bifurcated socially. Being private property, building security can keep skyways clear of riff-raff, the homeless and troublemakers, relegating them to the streets. This wouldn’t be as big an issue if everyone was on the sidewalk, providing more “eyes on the street.” It certainly would not solve the homeless issue or prevent incidents at certain bus stops, for example, but a shared sense of responsibility for, and actual, physical sharing of public realm would garner more attention and encourage creative solutions. Do you realize it is possible to drive downtown, park in one of several parking ramps, go to work or shop, and never set foot on the public sidewalk!? Some of you think that is pretty cool, but I think it is absolutely insane and anathema to urban life. Downtown should be downtown. That said, we have very good places in downtown such as the south end of Nicollet Mall, for example. That is a great place to simply be and we need more of it. That is what today's society craves – they don’t go somewhere to shop; they go somewhere to be. Our downtown needs to provide that, and skyways preclude it simply by taking too many people off the sidewalks and out of the public realm. Some of you will say remove the skyways over my dead body! Well, that is sort of the point. We've had them for just 50 years; surely we can be rid of them in another 50. You and I may be pushin’ up daisies by then, but our downtown will live on and be a better place for it. Minneapolis must become a more attractive, urbane city with a better pedestrian environment. Continuing to throw money at expensive skyways is wasteful and prevents us from achieving this goal. Remember, their original intent has not worked, and their current convenience doesn’t outweigh what they take away from downtown. Kudos to those who prepared the Downtown 2025 Plan for recognizing the “skyway conundrum.” We must encourage continued support for a high-quality public realm, free of skyways, that welcomes and embraces Minnesotans and visitors in all seasons.

Are we doing enough to create good cities and urbanism? Due to property rights, we cannot always control exactly what is built on private land, but we can certainly have a say in the ever-so-important public realm. An article earlier this month entitled Treasuring Urban Oases, featuring renowned urbanist Alexander Garvin, as well as examples in my own Minneapolis, would suggest that we are not doing enough in this respect. Garvin's premise is we should reverse our process, thinking first about the design of public space and then private development. Garvin suggests that New York is not unlike other cities in terms of its approvals process, pointing out public space and plazas are "bonuses," in zoning lingo, provided as add-ons by developers seeking approvals from the city and/or neighborhood. Sometimes we citizens get lucky and the public space created as part of the development is sublime. The plaza at Rockefeller Center provides an example of the sublime. Unfortunately, one has but to throw a rock to hit a public space that wasn't given enough consideration in the design and planning process. Take a good local example in Minneapolis - West River Commons. Visit the Longfellow Grill or Dunn Bros (located within West River Commons) at Lake Street and West River Road in Minneapolis and chances are you'll meet the rest of your party or wait for a table on the public plaza. The plaza provides a place for customers and the public to meet informally, and even hosts events like beer tastings. Although technically private property, the plaza at West River Commons provides a sublime, seamless transition from public (streets and parks - the Grand Rounds) to private businesses and residences. It is effectively the public realm, and wonderful at that. While West River Commons is a very good local example of public space, it is not a good example of the process. It came out of a lengthy series of negotiation between the developer, city and neighborhood. In other words, while the West River Commons plaza is a wonderful space, it was not part of the original vision for that site, exactly what Garvin points out in the New York Times article. We got lucky with West River Commons. There is no mechanism by which we are guaranteed a good public realm in other projects around the city, and in fact, West River Commons is the sadly the exception. Garvin looks to the Dutch for a fine example of how to do this right (I know, Europe this, Europe that, blah, blah, blah. Urbanists wouldn't go on ad-nauseum if so many European cities didn't repeatedly "get it right" with their development process). They take a formal, fine-grained approach to the public realm first, considering in detail where surrounding buildings should be and how they should relate to each other and the public realm. But we need not go overseas to find good examples. Take the Pearl District in Portland (I know, Portland this, Portland that, blah, blah, blah. Urbanists wouldn't go on ad-nauseum if Portland didn't repeatedly "get it right" with its development process). There, they began with what is effectively a master plan for the public realm, including a walkable grid of streets, sidewalks, with parks interspersed every few blocks, a school, and the provision of a streetcar serving the neighborhood. Development followed that, but even that included plans for amenities like a grocery store. The general public and talented designers together must be involved more intensively at the front end of the process. As an aside, it is disturbing is how little public input went in to the Peavey Plaza redesign process. The Star Tribune points out that some critics dislike the plan, and another (former) designer for the project, Charles Birnbaum, wrote a scathing attack on the public process. Decide for yourself. Maybe Birnbaum is blowing hot air, but he may very well have a point. After all, this is the premier gathering space in downtown Minneapolis. We cannot screw it up. The final phase of development at the old Grain Belt Brewery site in "Nordeast" Minneapolis poses another challenge. The city owns the site, a portion of which at the corner contains underground ruins from the former Orth Brewery. The city's RFP for development indicates that the ruins cannot be built upon, and that space will effectively be a plaza of some kind - read "public realm." Yes, the city wanted a feasible, marketable private development that would add to the tax rolls, and that is all well and good, but I believe the city process should have focused on the plaza first, with everything around it to follow in a well-designed manner. (Full disclosure - I was on the Diversified Equities team that did not win the RFP bid from the city. So, while I'm not complaining about the outcome of the team(s) that won (Everwood's proposal meets the city criteria - they won fair and square), my issue is with the overall process and lack of attention to the public realm. Indeed, our group had some very interesting conversations about the design of the plaza, its use and how the surrounding buildings would activate it. Better guidance by the city would have helped the process.) So while it is true the city has already invested heavily in subsidizing the Grain Belt Brewhouse renovation across the street, and preferred not to throw more money at the project, the reality is there will be a public plaza at the Orth Brewery site, and it should not be left entirely to the private developer to find a good solution. Designed right, it will activate the entire redevelopment and be a gatherting place for the neighborhood. Done wrong, it will be a windswept underutilized space surrounded by blank walls and surface parking. The city's process did not do enough to specifically address this, and it should have. This is our space, the public realm, and it should have been the starting point for any planning on the overall site. We citizens of Minneapolis got lucky with West River Commons, and time will tell if we do with the final Grain Belt development phase and Peavey Plaza (I won't even get in to the public realm that touches the new Walker Art Center). Whether it's Minneapolis, Portland, or a Dutch city, we own the public realm, and we all deserve for it to be given more consideration first and foremost in our planning and development process. Doing so will go farther than any starchitect ever could to create sublime urbanism for all to share and enjoy. The public realm isn't just streets. It includes sidewalks, boulevards, paths, trails, public plazas, parks, and the private building facades that front them. Alexander Garvin says it better than me in the New York Times: “The public realm is what we own and control....the streets, squares, parks, infrastructure and public buildings make up the fundamental element in any community — the framework around which everything else grows.” Well put, Mr. Alexander. We can do better.

The proposed streetcar took a huge step forward last week, according to the UrbanCincy website. Rustwire pointed out the challenges and obstacles overcome to get to this point. And I'm glad, because the city deserves it. And most of all, this new transportation improvement will complement some land use improvements to the city, the way land use and transit should relate. The streetcar will connect the downtown and riverfront (The Banks) to the emerging Over-the-Rhine/Gateway Quarter district, renovated Washington Park, Music Hall, the Findlay Market and eventually Uptown and the University of Cincinnati. Connecting employment, entertainment and emerging housing opportunities is a big part of the city's future. Their innovative public/private organization, 3CDC, has helped push forward some fantastic urban revitalization projects. With the help of 3CDC, Cincinnati's downtown park and event space, Fountain Square, has been renovated to the urban gathering place it is today. As well, the extensive renovations of historic buildings and new construction in the Over-the-Rhine district is possible in large part to 3CDC. Congrats and kudos to Cincinnati. You deserve this streetcar, and I wish you continued success!