By Joe Baur
Skywalks have been a major point of contention between city residents, developers and politicians. I’ve made my opinion well known, as have other Clevelanders who view skywalks as a detriment to walkable environments.
Though no matter how many experts we, the anti-skywalk crowd, point to that say skywalks are generally a bad idea, no matter how many cities we point to that are demolishing skywalks for the same reasons we want to stop proposed skywalks in Cleveland – there are still those who stand on ideological grounds. That is, nobody should be able to tell a business what a business can do with their property.
If we accept for the sake of argument that businesses should be able to do whatever they wish without restriction, and also accept that private dollars inherently trump the objections of taxpaying residents of downtown where skywalks have become a tenuous issue, then we can focus on another issue that’s often overlooked in the skywalk conversation. Who has the right to the space between buildings?
The argument I’ve heard in regards to the proposed casino and Westin hotel skywalks is that if they, the private entities, want to pay for a skywalk, that’s their business. But since when did any entity, private or public, have the right to the space between buildings? Skywalks aren’t taxable, nor do they serve any purpose of bettering the neighborhood for local residents – two key points for development of land in the first place. Are anti-regulation types really suggesting that private entities inherently have the right to the space between buildings over the taxpaying resident?
This is where a recent Plain Dealer article on the cost of refurbishing the Cuyahoga County Headquarters skywalk comes to play. Revelations that enhancements of the current eyesore stretching across Prospect Avenue would cost upwards of $700,000 of taxpayer funds have rightly drawn the ire of Clevelanders across the political and urban-suburban spectrum. Tearing the structure down is estimated to cost $500,000. That’s a seemingly high number for demolition, sure, but the general consensus from Cuyahoga County taxpayers seems to be that the structure should be removed. This scenario leads me to believe that we the taxpayers have first dibs on the space between buildings.
There are those who will say the comparison is moot since the county project uses taxpayer funds while private development does not. But to call the comparison moot leads to the conclusion of my original fear that there are those who truly believe private entities inherently have rights to the space between buildings over taxpaying residents. How is that not a ludicrous suggestion? I would hope that anyone would be willing to admit that taxpaying residents at least get a seat at the table.
Those who say private businesses should be able to do whatever they want with their money insist that to act otherwise scares businesses from investing in Cleveland. But what kind of message does that deliver to neighborhood residents if we have no input on how our city is developed? There has to be a happy medium that brings both sides to the table. But as of now, the influx of young professionals moving to downtown Cleveland will start to decline over the long-term if the message we continue to send is one of their irrelevance in the face of big money developers.
Joe Baur is a freelance writer, filmmaker and satirist with a diverse array of interests including travel, adventure, craft beer, health, urban issues, culture and politics. He ranks his allegiances in the order of Cleveland, the state of Ohio and the Rust Belt, and enjoys a fried egg on a variety of meats. Joe has a B.A. in Mass Communication with a focus on production from Miami University. Follow him at http://JoeBaur.com and on Twitter @MildlyRelevant.
3 Responses to “The Space Between Buildings: Who Has The Rights?”
Howard Gollop
I guess Brent Williams is one of those other “experts” who counter Joe Bauer’s rather simplistic stance against skywalks. I tend to agree with Williams, based on experiencing Minneapolis, Boston and Des Moines myself.
The success of a skywalk system in Minneapolis was pointed out to Baur in another post, and his answer was that other factors figure in to the success of that city’s skywalk system. I wonder why it didn’t occur to him that the same could be said for the non-success of the skywalk systems in Cincinnati, which was poorly planned from the get-go (with some structures looking more like open fire-escapes).
But the subject here is Cleveland, not Cincinnati, which begs the elephant-in-the-room counter argument that Baur continues to conveniently ignore:
Namely, a dedicated single skywalk to a parking facility is NOT the same thing as a SKYWALK SYSTEM — which is a comprehensive NETWORK of skywalks and dedicated walkways within buildings to keep pedestrians indoors for extended blocks.
In the case of the proposed new county offices, Baur’s stance is dumbfounding. To tear down an already existing structurally-sound skywalk connection to parking (at a cost that would be almost as costly as renovating it to like new condition), would serve no purpose other than create angry workers.
Has Bauer even thought things through? The additional foot traffic from closing the skywalk would be, at best, weekdays from 8 to 9 a.m. (before any stores open) and from 5 to 6 p.m. (when the workers are interested in going home). How can that possibly be construed as a viable, serious addition to urban street life?
Bauer may also want to make a study of successful convention cities. SINGLE connections between a convention center and a dedicated hotel are as successful as they are ubiquitous.
It would seem to me, the main objective first and foremost is to offer a user-friendly environment for tourists. As Minneapolis proves, ensuring a city is user friendly brings people to the city center, which in turn brings people to the streets when incentivized by shops, restaurants and clubs and not for lack of alternatives.
Again, Cleveland never had a skywalk SYSTEM and never will, which make me think Bauer should take his quest elsewhere. In the mean time, the limited skywalks in Cleveland are clearly what people want, just as parking skywalks (like the ones already exiting in The Q and PlayhouseSquare) clearly have no adverse affect on what truly turns a city into a vibrant pedestrian-friendly area — a large residential core and suburbanites willing to join them at restaurants, stores and nightlife.
Critics often portray skywalks as “glass gerbil tubes.” But, in the wind and snow, I would much rather be a warm gerbil than a freezing Guinea pig enduring some overreaching urban social engineering.
Brent Williams
After spending significant time working in DownTown Des Moines, I have disagree with your assessment. Des Moines has a population significantly less than that of Cleveland, yet it has a very extensive skywalk system. I can personally attest to the benefit of that skywalk system, and the benefits a system like that can bring to a city.
During the winter months, MORE people will frequent the downtown area because they are given the option of traversing the skywalks vs. braving the bitter cold streets. The skywalk system in Des Moines has clearly not adversely affected the downtown areas as there are more resturaunts and shops per capita in the downtown area than MOST major metropolitan areas.
People come from the suburbs in Des Moines to downtown to go to resturaunts and take in shows on the weekends. The skywalks make that a more appealing option for them. Not to mention the LARGE number of downtown workers that use the skywalks after work every day for happy hours, resturaunts, and activities such as working out, billiards, etc. The skywalks allow that to happen.
As for business, that’s a no brainer. When I worked in the Higbee building and had to walk across Public Square to the Key Tower once or twice a day, a skywalk would have made things far more productive for me. In Des Moines, travelling between office buildings is easy! There’s no need to don the hat and coat and brave the weather just to get to a meeting!
Lunchtime for example is a breeze there. I could simply traverse the skywalk to my favorite local eatery or to the food court at the mall. When I worked in the Higbee building, the food court in Tower City was a daily stop. I would take the train into downtown, get off in the basement of Tower City, head upstairs, stop by Dunkin for some coffee and walk over to the Higbee entrance without ever stepping outside. That convenience was a major reason for taking that job. Otherwise i would have stayed in the suburbs.
Your perspective on this is different from mine. You want Clevelander’s to be proud of Cleveland and visit downtown out of a sense of duty or loyalty to our city. I think people are just people, taking the oath of least resistance. Make it comfortable and easy to visit downtown and they will come. I believe a skywalk system would do wonders for the vitality of our downtown.
Laura Kennelly
Hi Brent,
I’ll take that “oath of least resistance” you mention above. As someone who would love to live in the city as soon as you finish getting people out on the streets (great idea, really–I love visiting NYC and San Francisco) and also someone who does not use the skywalk to go to Playhouse productions when I drive in from another small town, I’m glad to see this discussed.
(Lots of people exit the theatre from the street side–lest they miss the great sax player?–I’ve seen them. The some of the ones who take the skywalk appear to have health problems–I’d hate to see them shut out of things.)
Perhaps it does not have to be an “either/or” question, but instead something looked at on a case-by-case basis. I’ve gone to conferences in Minneapolis and found some of the skywalks great and others, kinda creepy. Same for Toronto. Skywalks have not distracted from street level things for me–just made them easier to spot and faster to get to.
I think the Cleveland Clinic ones work (after all, they are for sick people) and the ones at the Casino might not for the reasons cited. We could avoid a “one size fits all” approach based on who owns the skies next to the buildings (but if they are over public streets then, folks, we do–public property).