Walkable cities? So how come pedestrian malls usually fail?
The current rage against the machine is to replace auto-centric ways with sustainable walks to work and shop. Maybe not so current — it had a prior life in the battle to save downtowns from urban exodus and suburban malls.
"The latest discovery of city planners is walking," states a Time magazine article, quoting a University of Washington Professor of Urban Planning (my father), who urges the United States to borrow from European cities and carefully emulate dramatic walks from street to square, capturing views and using water features along the way. That was 47 years ago.
It's not that American cities did not try in the years that followed. As the City Council enables Seattle's Pedestrian Master Plan, and candidates debate modes of transit and getting cars off roads, it's critical that they keep in mind lessons from many failures. Of the many attempts in cities nationwide to achieve walkable spaces, why were so many unsuccessful?
Perhaps the failure lay in a pattern seen locally in Eugene, Oregon. The approach there was a scenario at first glance not unlike a public version of Seattle's much emulated University Village: block off vehicular traffic for several blocks and create pedestrian amenities such as small parks and planters, water features, places to sit, and play areas — all near to transit and a big parking garage. The undesired outcome has usually been a reconversion to auto traffic because retailers are cut off from direct auto access. Downtown Eugene has never recovered from its "cure."
But in some urban settings, such as the college town of Boulder, Colorado, the automobile return never occurred. Similarly, Burlington, Vermont's downtown mall expanded. The likely reasons for success in these towns: a willing lifestyle; and a symbiotic mix of amenities and retail, including dining and entertainment which creates a desirable venue rather than a makeshift road-blocked space.
Another success was in San Antonio, where the River Walk is grade- separated from the automobile, connects popular tourist venues, the river as an attractive amenity, and offers a varied, circuitous, and green pedestrian experience of walk, bridge, and stair.
It's not just the street that dictates success. The key is finding the right blend of such factors as these: 1) desirable and appropriate building forms and how they interact with public rights of way; 2) hierarchies of public rights of way; 3) the appropriate separation of pedestrians and vehicles; and 4) how to manage speed and noise with traffic control devices, law enforcement, and vehicle redesign.







Comments:
Posted Thu, Sep 24, 8:45 p.m. inappropriate
The author apparently has not been to University Village. University Village is not like Eugene disastrous experiment. Everywhere you go except one small interior courtyard there are cars. Vehicles are not blocked off for several blocks they are in amongst the stores.
The Burlington and Boulder are university towns. The River Walk is a walk, not a shopping district.
If you want to shop without cars around, there is Northgate, Southcenter, and Bell Square.
The automobile is a part of the urban shopping experience, get use to it.
Posted Fri, Sep 25, 9:14 a.m. inappropriate
Tacoma's retail district, Broadway between 9th and 15th, was crippled by the Tacoma Mall in the mid-60s. Then the City turned it into a ghost town by converting the area between 11th and 15th into the "Broadway Plaza" in the 70s. With the reintroduction of limited vehicular traffic a few years later, its only now recovering; but retail is gone.
Posted Fri, Sep 25, 9:55 a.m. inappropriate
Chuck, I think you hit on some important factors in determining the differential success of walkability enhancements in recent decades. Another difference: density. Eugene doesn't have the density to make something like that work, and it appears city planners were attempting to provide a solution where there was no problem demanding it. For a large pedestrian mall like that to work would require a level of density Eugene is unlikely to ever see. Why would residents or visitors head to that artificial (and dated) mallway when there are better, natural open spaces all around? Shutting cars out altogether is best left to very specific, limited areas with particularly high density. The proposed park blocks in Belltown are a good example. New York had great success this summer turning part of Broadway into a pedestrian mall, but New York has a density we'll never see here in the West, especially in Eugene, OR.
Out on the campaign trail myself and others have talked about walkable neighborhoods, but I haven't heard a single person recommend re-creating anything like what was tried in Eugene. Instead, what I and some others have talked about is creating inviting public spaces along our roads, finding a balance between cars, bicycles and pedestrians—particularly in our business districts as we increase the density in those areas. Widening sidewalks, separating bike paths from moving traffic and adding amenities like benches and planters, allowing restaurants to have sidewalk cafes, etc. It's less about creating something artificial like the failed Eugene experiment (or the very successful University Village for that matter), and more about maintaining and enhancing precious public spaces as we add density in the areas immediately surrounding our business districts, so that they become even more inviting and lively as more people continue to come to Seattle.
It's a way to maintain our famed quality of life without either destroying this beautiful land we inhabit with more suburban sprawl or pricing our own kids out of the market. And it's about meeting the twin threats of climate change and petroleum depletion head-on, making smart choices today that will allow this city and it's inhabitants to maintain a high quality of life in the future. Rather than looking at Eugene as an example, I'd look to what San Francisco has done with the Embarcadero and Octavia Boulevard. Those are closer to the conditions we're talking about here, and they've been smashing successes because in an increasingly dense urban environment great public spaces, from parks to streetscapes, naturally become more important, increase nearby land values, and increase foot traffic for local businesses. I look to Fremont and Columbia City as local examples—these are places that have added density and enhanced walkability without shutting out cars, and they've both become more desirable places to live and shop in the process. Perhaps equally important, both have developed organically, each taking on a character that fit the community rather than being planned by a committee of planners at City Hall.
Replacing our antiquated planning and land use code and zoning with a simplified smartcode, re-empowering architects to design solutions that fit their environs and the needs and desires of individual communities, and involving our neighborhoods in the process so those needs are clear at the outset will go a long way toward ensuring more success here in Seattle.
Posted Fri, Sep 25, 10:28 a.m. inappropriate
Making pedestrian malls is simple. Where you have too much pedestrian volume conflicting with cars, you take the cars out of the mix.
The best candidate for Seattle's first pedestrian mall is Pike Place. It's assinine that cars are aloud to drive down that street on weekends, or during business hours generally. It tricks tourists into thinking it's a good idea to drive through, and then they're stuck for half an hour at 1 foot per minute.
It's okay for pedestrian malls to be open to cars during some hours. Let the market delivery traffic do its thing until 10am, and after they shut down at 5pm. If we still need some vehicles to wade through the people, give them a special permit.
Really, the areas around Safeco and Qwest Fields are effectively pedestrian malls. We don't let cars in because of all the people walking just before and after games.
It doesn't take a million dollars of reengineered concrete and planters to make a pedestrian mall. Just people.
Posted Fri, Sep 25, 11:33 a.m. inappropriate
Rob K, amen to that brother!
Though I cringe at the moniker of mall being applied to Pike Place Market, if there is any outdoor retail setting in Seattle where vehicular traffic should be restricted the Market is it.
Imagine if portable tables could be set up along that cobblestone street during the lunch hour. After hours it can revert back to delivery traffic followed by valet parking for the night time.
Posted Fri, Sep 25, 12:47 p.m. inappropriate
Pike Place is a pedestrian zone success story - yes, you can drive there, but not any faster than a pedestrian can walk.
Malls themselves, which would include University Village, are great pedestrian successes.
The important questions here are what makes a successful business district - whether it be corporate or organic. This question is not answered by this piece, instead it seems to be arguing that such efforts are likely folly.
One wonders that if we actually had a capable land use practice in Seattle if folks would actually respect that, and gravitate to good ideas - just like they do in Portland, for example, the Pearl District.
In Tacoma, the next big pedestrian test will be along the Thea Foss esplanade - great connections to the already popular Ruston Way restaraunt walk, UW-Tacoma, and the Dome may well prove to be the ingredients for success.
Posted Sat, Sep 26, 8:44 a.m. inappropriate
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the concept of complete streets, which are designed for "everyone, whether young or old, motorist or bicyclist, walker or wheelchair user, bus rider or shopkeeper." The redesign of the Ave along these lines a few years ago has worked pretty well.
Posted Sat, Sep 26, 3:53 p.m. inappropriate
I'm not sure why the term "walkable city" is conflated with "pedestrian only." There are plenty of places that are walkable while also allowing auto traffic. Pike Pl is a good example. Even Grant Cogswell, who was no friend of the automoble, advocated reopening Occidental Ave through Pioneer Square, the reason being that public spaces should not exclude any one mode entirely.
Posted Thu, Oct 1, 3:50 p.m. inappropriate
I find it odd to judge the value of walkability on the economic success of pedestrian street experiments? The economic history of downtowns in the US is rich, complicated, and often dismal. This is not the result of pedestrian street experiments, but of our practices of zoning, permitting, transportation planning, and tax policy - not to mention the historical culture of the quarter-acre American dream. These pedestrian street experiments came about as suburban malls were sprouting like spring, as the Interstate system was a common mode of travel, as the US was building massive amounts of suburban single family houses, and as cities were being viewed as a negative influence on social values and childhood development. The pedestrian shopping street as an attempted response was by far the underdog in shaping our urban development.
There seems to be a common desire to equate a US style shopping mall to a European style market street. Though they both have shops fairly close together, they delegate and share space very differently. In the US, our shopping malls are frequently only shops - and often commodity shops instead of store satisfying daily needs. In Europe (and many other areas of the world, by no means did Europe invent this) the market street is a vast mix of uses. Apartments, houses, and offices mix in with the shops and are often on the 2+ floor of the building. Grocers, butchers, and pharmacies intermix with knickknack, designer cloths, and restaurants. The spaces small and medium sized so many options are available in a short distance. In many ways, this is the case for a place like Pike Place Market.
Some countries in Europe have been following the US big box phenomenon. They are gradually permitting plans for periphery development and financial incentives - their own experiment. Like here, it is having an impact on the downtown economic vitality. If they keep going for a few decades, perhaps they'll look back at their market streets as a 'failure' as well.
Posted Thu, Oct 1, 10:18 p.m. inappropriate
shopping with the auto are directly correlated with the cost of land; the higher the land cost, the more difficult it is to store the car and the more dominant the pedestrian becomes; there are great shopping areas throughout the world at all levels of density and auto use, but they look different; there are also failures at all levels. NYC, London, Tokyo, and Paris have very high land cost and great shopping areas where the car has little role; it is too costly to drag that much steel along. Eugene W. is correct that U Village is a success. but there are other auto-oriented shopping areas that have failed (Totem Lake) and some that have been revived by through the celebration of pedestrian interaction; consider what Ron Sher has done with Third Place Books in LFP and Crossroads.
Posted Thu, Oct 1, 10:59 p.m. inappropriate
I suspect UVillage is not even completely auto-oriented anymore. Yes, it has large and frequently full parking lots, but with the two UW student housing complexes directly north and four market rate apartment complexes along Blakeley they get a lot of foot and bike traffic as well. If the QFC parking lot mixed-use project goes in will continue the trend.
Posted Sat, Oct 3, 2:55 a.m. inappropriate
because few communities have enough of a density of people walking to activate spaces. A bush or flowers don't activate spaces -- people do.
The exceptions that work prove the rule -- university type towns, where you have thousands of students living nearby the commercial district, and for the most part, they don't have cars.
I'm not sure I'd consider River Walk a pedestrian mall in the normal sense of the term, it's a riverwalk or boardwalk type experience, along a river, not on-street in the city mix kind of a place.
See these past blog entries of mine:
http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2005/12/now-i-know-why-boulders-pearl-street.html
http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2009/04/todays-trends-with-pedestrian-malls.html