Apparently, people seem to forget that two sets of TRAX lines run down Main Street. It was miserable getting across the street under the old configuration, and it will not be less miserable undet the new configuration unless the sky bridge is allowed.

This skybridge is a huge mistake. First of all, there is no way that the skybridge is "absolutely essential" or "necessary" to make City Creek thrive. The developers know that the only purpose is to keep people inside the malls and off the street. This is exactly what we didn't want!!! We wanted a downtown and Main St. where consumers were lured to the street, not kept off it. I'm so THANKFUL that at least there are some City Council Members who have a backbone. Thanks Professor Garrott and Mr. Simonsen.

In all fairness to the Dnews and its integrity of reporting, while I criticized them for inadequacy in reporting the Anti-gay presentation story also today, it seems they are willing to add a degree of objectivity. While it is admirable for them to publicize the students report, they still providing a counter argument which helps secure church profits.

After living in Italy for some time I can attest that pedestrian traffic at street level is essential to a vibrant urban spaces. Concentrating pedestrian traffic at street level increases the ability of those buisnesses to be profitable and allows for housing in the floors proposed for retail above.

Besides if you are going to build as much housing as the church proposes wouldn't housing closer to street level be cheaper and more convienent for the residents? Perhaps they should just scrap the second level of retail and focus on making the street, and entrance to Temple Square work.

I think the skybridge is a great way to improve safety and improve traffic flow across Main St. I won't miss being panhandled at both curbs either. I just don't get the part where the "sense of community" will be disrupted, unless Hill refers to a very poor substitute for a San Francisco Pier 38 street performers group that had nothing to do and no place to do it but the crossing between the ZC Mall and Crossroads. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

It's mind numbing to hear the constant crying about Main Street. I saw a photo of Main in 1906 it was wide and cars were parked on it, looking busy. It was clearly the only option for shopping etc.

Flash forward 2008, Main is now part of a much larger downtown complex and I don’t think that it is the whole of downtown, not even close.

Even today the opinion of fewer people on the streets doesn’t hold water. More people visit SLC than ever before, more people live downtown than ever before, more people eat, drink and spend downtown than ever before. With all the new housing and several new office towers being constructed over the next 3-5 years there will be additional thousands of people living, working and yes walking “downtown”. News flash, not all will be crammed into CCC.

Truth is never in the extreme ends of a future situation it is always closer to the middle. Oh you can pick an end and make your point, or write a paper. But 1906 isn’t coming back and it is not a sky-bridges fault.

If the city was truly serious about it they would have, and could have put the new library right in the heart of the discussion on Main, they could have helped put the basketball and event arena right were it once stood on the corner of W Temple and No. Temple. They could have run TRAX along 2nd East and not cut Main in half. There are so many decisions by the city that have turned the focus to other areas, if it had been paying attention SLC could have had all the focus on this one area but it chose not to.

So for once I would appreciate the ire and distain to be pointed in the right direction to 4th and State where the City Council and Mayor have an office, oh that could have been on Main to I guess.

Great cities are vertical as well as horizontal... forcing people to the street (when they are already on a second level) is artificial and does nothing to make Main St more appealing. If anything, the skybridge gives another (interesting) view of Main St and a chance to be drawn to activity on the street. It will be the quality of shopping, eating, and activity on Main St that will bring it traffic (the challenge should not be about this bridge, it will be about what it takes to get people downtown). To say the skybridge is counter to the Pioneer spirit or somehow even related to Pioneers trekking across the wilderness (read that Main St) shows how far one will stretch a sales pitch to make a (silly) point. Correct: the bridge is not essential BUT it adds another dimension to a high-density, high-intensity environment (what I hope downtown SLC becomes).. and whoever said great design only fulfilled "essential" functions -- I much prefer "complexity and contradiction" to "form follows function". Make City Creek interesting - build the bridge.

A report on research to validate your predetermined position is not valid.

From a shopper's point of view, a sky bridge is a great idea. Consider the popularity of shopping malls, where shoppers park their cars, then enter a building where they can shop in a variety of stores unhindered by weather. Clearly, the "Main Street" shopping experience is no longer important to the majority of shoppers.

If we were to read this student's research paper, wouldn't we find the facts overpowered by political advocacy? Sadly, that's the case these days. Sky bridges in Minneapolis and Portland are very popular, and those who have been to downtown Houston know that the city's underground walkways lined with stores are very popular, too, especially during the heat and humidity of summer. City Council: please focus on the facts.

No skybridge, close Main Street between 1st South and South Temple to cars.

Councilmen Christiansen and Ericksen, you must hold these extreme factions in check. This student represents the new gradutes of planning that have little or no experience in living in the mess they create. Pres. Young was the best excample of urban planning ever and if this new breed of planners studied his plan they would see a very efficient traffic flow throught the SL Valley. Sky Brides help the flow of shoppers not hinder it. She allowed she will screw up anything she touches just like the planners of South Jordan where you can't get anywhere without going in circles. SHE AND HER AGENDA MUST BE STOPPED !

We seem to be forgetting the most important fact: a private organization owns the two blocks and is voluntarily investing $1.5 billion of their own money to improve downtown with no tax-funded subsidies.

How about letting them decide whether or not a sky bridge is essential to their project or not. What would you rather have, the redevelopment with a sky bridge, or no redevelopment at all?

Kathleen Hill, with all her education, has failed to
think "Three Dimensionaly". She is another example of our failed education system. Money was not well spent on her,a refund is in order. P.S, Have you ever heard of private property ? If not, move to China.

So some student that sits in a classroom all day reading books thinks she is smarter than developers investing 1.5 BILLION dollars into this project. I would put my money on experience and investment and experience a million times over some student shut up in a classroom that has ZERO real world experience. The main thing I learned from my college degree was perseverance, study habits, and lack of real world knowledge. Lets trust the real world knowledge here people. Obviously if their putting 1.5 Billion behind the project they obviously have major reasons to include a skybridge. I am a huge fan of a skybridge. How stupid would it be to walk down some stairs, cross a busy street and then walk up some more stairs. Hmm seems a lot more efficient to just build a sky bridge! Build, Build, Build, Build!!!!

The idea of a vibrant walk able city sounds great, but the thought of 10 foot walks 2 lanes of traffic in both directions and I almost forgot Trax running down the center, again how is it walk able? Unless all of us that support downtown walk around with those silly orange flags that Rocky gave us “for our safety” if you are serious about a vibrant walk able city, than the discussion should be tilted to closing Main street to motor vehicles make large walk able sidewalks where street side cafes and street vendors can prosper, make it a place to “Hang Out” and not a place to get from point A to B.

Those that are opposed to the skybridge want to have their cake and eat it too, and they even want to eat someone else's cake also.
Let the developers of City Creek decide what is best for their project. The project will bring many more people to Main Street than there has been for a long time, even with the skybridge. The developers are the ones putting in the money and they should be allowed to do what will make their project most viable.
I don't see those opposed to the skybridge putting their money where their mouth's are.
Perhaps they should allow the bridge to be put in place for a year, then put up the money to tear it down and well as additional funds the developer may lose by not having adequate cross access to their project. If those opposed are right, the developer won't lose money with the skybridge removal and the only cost to the opposition will be demolition of the skybridge. One the other hand, the developer will be compensated if he is right and loses business because the skybridge is gone.

On cold days when it is slushy on the streets, and rain or snow are coming down, how many shoppers are going to be excited about crossing the street to get to the other side of the development?! I for one would be much more likely to cross to the other side of the City Creek Center if I could stay indoors.

I don't why the only argument the student in this story could say was "it just doesn't work." Seems like a PhD candidate with a year's worth of research should be able to give a better argument in a few words than that.

It seems that the only argument against the sky bridge is that we need to keep pedestrians on the street, or all the street-level stores will fail. Come up with some better reasoning or support the project.

I'm no architect or urban planner, but I am a shopper. I appreciate the bridges in the Gateway development that allow me to cross from one side of a busy street to another without fearing for my children. If there is a store I'm interested in, I go to it, regardless of whether it is on street level or the 2nd floor.

When I was in Sydney I loved the tunnels under the streets that had small stores in them. They didn't keep me out of the street shops, however.

I don't want to discredit the scholarship of this young woman, but I do wonder if her attitude about the sky-bridge would change if she had children in tow. I don't like my teenagers crossing main street, and so would appreciate the bridge.

I wonder if Ms Hill ever looked at the Sky Bridge spanning Pitt Street in Sydney Australia. Pitt is blocked off from vechile traffic for several blocks and there is a Sky Bridge linking 2 large department stores among other venues. The street traffic of pedistrians has not been hurt one bit and access from one store to the other has been made a lot easier. I can not see where a Sky Bridge over Main Street will either look bad or hinder foot traffic on Main. I think that these people who are against these types of thing aught to look at the whole picture and who it will benefit. If they don't want to use the bridge they don't have to, but let all the people that do have the convience.

I find it interesting that the report on Skybridges by Hill is based on her personal bias. (It also sounds like the report is being used as a thesis for a Master's Degree - doing "research" based on a predetermined opinion make the report invalid.)

I am a land use planner in an urban city and we encourage and, where we can, require pedestrian bridges for several reasons, including safety and creating a sense of place. Pedestrian bridges contribute to the interaction of people.

Perhaps Hill is really talking about public gathering places, which streets are not. If you want a public gathering place, create a square, plaza or pedestrian bridge, where people can gather and meet and visit.

I haven't seen plans for the bridge, but I hope it is wide enough to include seating and other amenities that enourage gathering, as well a providing for the safe movement of pedestrians. If you want a downtown that is "alive", the pedestrian bridge will be a great start.

This bridge does not connect the second levels of the two blocks--it connects the second level of the Crossroads block to Ground level of the ZCMI block. The main entrance to the ZCMI block from South Temple is on the second level. There is a major elevation gain/loss across this project, and that fact should be relevant to this conversation. Beyond that, I absolutely agree with RW and GGC, among others.

Let me just say that if I want to leave the building and/or skybridge and walk street level, that's what I will do by choice. A skybridge will not keep me from getting where I want to go. If I don't want to cross Main street in the cold or jeopardize my safety by crossing the street, I'd like an alternative route. The skybridge is a great option. Put me down as pro-skybridge, it just makes sense.

It is asinine to base an entire project's success/failure on the presence of a sky bridge. In reality, the success of City Creek depends on the success of the city itself; which success would be much more likely WITHOUT the sky bridge. Shoppers will shop, regardless of weather

The greatest problem with The Gateway and Gateway-esque developments is their isolation from their community. They can largely only be reached from a car, and once there, visitors are not likely to go too far exploring in surrounding neighborhoods (especially at the Gateway). Though the Gateway has undoubtedly cleaned up the image of the "Gateway District" (not named for the multi-bajillion-dollar development, by the way, but for the railroad and immigration), this new development has not strengthened or aided existing local businesses. It's only wiped them out and replaced them with corporate monstrosities.

By completely removing pedestrians from the street, this sky bridge would sound the death nell for many small local businesses in the area.

It is asinine to base City Creek's viability on the sky bridge. In reality, the success of City Creek depends on the success of the community itself. This success would be much more likely WITHOUT the sky bridge. Shoppers will shop, regardless of weather, but they have to have a reason to -- the sky bridge would remove a lot of pedestrian traffic from the street, hurting local businesses.

The greatest problem with Gateway-esque developments is their isolation from their community. Most are only accessible by car, and once there, visitors are not likely to explore surrounding neighborhoods (especially at the Gateway). Though the Gateway has undoubtedly cleaned up the image of the "Gateway District" (historically named for railroad and immigration, not the bajillion-dollar development), it has not strengthened or aided existing local businesses. It's only wiped them out and replaced them with more corporate chain stores.

By removing pedestrians from the street, this sky bridge would sound the death nell for many local businesses and blight the area... again. As great as conceptual renderings look now, if City Creek doesn't incorporate surrounding businesses, just like Crossroads, we'll be tearing it down in a couple of decades for something "better."

The Deseret News needs to print the letter Mayor Becker received from Space Syntax, a think tank in London England that stepped forward on this issue to let Salt Lake City know we are making a mistake with the skybridge. While Ms. Hill may only have a year's worth of research to show why skybridges don't work in this context, Space Syntax has 30 years of research and can back it up with data. And they can quantify their research results.

In this context, skybridges undermine the health and vitality of cities.

Two great comments - The city is horizontal AND vertical, Gateway has done nothing to help the neighborhood around it. THIS is what we should really be talking about and what Soren Simonsen has been emphasizing strenuously. The interaction and activity at the edges of City Creek Center and how that interplays with the rest of downtown matters more than what happens within the project. Taubman has its own interest within the project to make sure its a huge success but ensuring those same opportunities exist and tie in with the rest of downtown aren't still necessarily there. That's why we may just be building the same Crossroads and ZCMI all over again where people come, park, shop, and never leave to see anything except maybe Temple Square in downtown. Thanks for the $1.5 billion attempt at revitalization.

that's either some real second level thinking or another forty three page history report whose outcome dooms the author to repeat it. how can research by compiled on examples of structures in like contexts when a like context will not exist until this structure is completed? if there are pioneers on the council they should originate or help open a new line of thought and method for the development of the city creek center's skybridge.

Every time I visit SLC, I always enjoy downtown. Walkable streets, great storefronts, people and more.

Cincinnati has had a SKYWALK system that connects the second level of many buildings downtown since the 1970s.

Since the mid 1990s, we have been correcting these mistakes by ripping them down - because they sap the life that should be on the street!

If vehicular traffic is a concern, then fix that traffic to accommodate more pedestrian crossings - you'll be glad you did in the future!