oobject » People Like to Walk At Street Level

(votes: -40)

Like the Highline, the Barbican Center in London created a pedestrianized zone one level above the street. It has become a sad and lonely place and people still use the street level underpass which is hostile to pedestrians.

View the entire chart: 9 reasons why the highline sucks

14 Responses to “People Like to Walk At Street Level”

Kathy Says:
June 11th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Do people really like to walk at street level or is it the only thing they know and don’t know any else? I think the link for people to walk is what is important.
admin Says:
June 11th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Well the evidence is that people would rather put up with a less attractive environment connected directly to the surrounding street pattern than a nicely designed pedestrian environment that is a high level walkway. The Barbican is an example of this, the image above shows people using the normal ground level route alongside cars in a dimly lit tunnel (Beech St.) rather than the landscaped one designed for them 1 floor up.

The Highline would have worked better if it were stitched into the surrounding street pattern at many points, more multi level buildings (restaurants, cafes etc.) straddling below and above and shallow ramps to the top level with seamless landscaping.

In 20 years the Highline will be a skatepark.
Richard Says:
June 13th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Typical of the urban design dogma that is creating new urbanism blandest across North America. Elevated structures are a design challenge but if done right, can create wonderful spaces both below and on top.

For example, in Vancouver, Granville Island, one of the truly interesting places in Vancouver, is under a huge bridge and is the most popular place in Vancouver. Meanwhile, we have miles of cookie cutting mixed use on roads arranged in a grid and only a small portion of it is really lively.

I’m getting really tired of uncreative and lazy urban planners who are unwilling to take on the challenge of creating great spaces and instead, simply use the same old “urban design principles everywhere. It is just boring. To create something special, you have to have the courage to do something different.
Doug Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Wow. I’m usually all for well-thought out contrarian arguments, but this article is so misguided it is stunning.
AE Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Do people really like to walk at street level or is it the only thing they know and don’t know any else? I think the link for people to walk is what is important.

Well there is good evidence that it’s at least very hard to do right.

Arlington, Va., which is widely known as being a leader in pedestrian friendly areas, would probably be a good place to look as to what not to do. They have two neighborhoods that built non-street-level pedestrian areas and both efforts are relatively to being fully abandoned.

In Rosslyn, the county built above-ground walkways to connect buildings and seperate pedestrians from cars, but this is being demolished since few people used them. Basically you can never build enough pedestrian bridges to allow you to cut the right corners etc. Plus, the retail ends up on the ground anyway so you have to go up lots of stairs.

In Crystal City, developers built a below-ground mall near metro station that had access to office and residential buildings, but it’s basically a ugly crap mall with no major stores and few stores worth traveling too. All the new retail and restaurants built in the area have been built above ground.

Now, those were built awhile back and urban design has moved forward, but still in most places I’d bet it isn’t worth the effort. My guess is that the saving grace of the New York effort could be the number of tourists who will go there just to check it out. This means there might be just enough people to make it not feel empty to local residents… and thus become a place to go. Still, New York also needs to be careful about making sure there is stuff to DO and SEE up in the park.
Doug Says:
June 15th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Mulit-level pedestrian pathways fail where the density is not high enough. Multi-level _anything_ fails where the density is not high enough. Places like Hong Kong, Tokyo, Seoul, and yes, New York can support both a thriving street life and levels above or below.
Matt Says:
June 17th, 2009 at 7:39 am
I don’t know how many times you’ve been to the Barbican but lots of people (myself included) go out of their way to use the Highwalks even when the street-level route would be quicker. Commuters often continue to use Beech Street as a cut-through to Barbican Station because it’s quicker, not because they don’t want to use the Highwalk. In contrast most people going to the Barbican Centre use the Highwalks because they provide quicker access than Beech Street does (the street-level entrance to the Centre is extremely lightly used).

It’s a testament to the work of the City of London that the Highwalks and the whole Barbican complex feel safe at any time of day or night.
d Says:
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:34 pm
read it all, disagree with every single point. i give u zero for score… : )
Marian Says:
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Wow. Having visited the High Line today I’m floored by your list. What a bleak view of cities and people. Love the fresh look at the Hudson and the meatpacking and Chelsea neighborhoods afforded by the elevated walkway. Not worried that bikes don’t have access - there are plenty of places for bikes to play in NYC, including 100 yards away on the WS Hway. Bikes are fab but don’t need to go everywhere people go. And a needle park??? Gads. People seemed to be having fun, congregating, lounging, talking, working, drawing, hanging with their kids and friends. What I saw was pretty terrific. Don’t harsh my mellow, oobject.
thomas moore Says:
June 24th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
The Steven Holl design for the highline had fire- escape- like spiral stairways, which connected the
promenade to the spaces below it. I think the idea was that the stairways would be installed at intervals running the length of the highline. the stairways have a mirroring effect, that it echoes the city’s many subway stairwells. Just a reminder that the city exists on many levels.
Mr Phoenix Says:
June 29th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
You have obviously never walked along this street. The tunnel is quite pleasant to navigate on foot and by no means feels “hostile”. In any case, the above ground parts of the Barbican are so beloved by everyone who lives/works around it that they are in constant use day and night. There is no either-or compromise between convenience and comfort here: the Beech Street tunnel is the fastest way to get from one side of the Barbican to the other. The Highwalk is the fastest way to get into the Barbican complex.
Blueprint Magazine - Architecture & Design Says:
July 3rd, 2009 at 5:54 am
[…] thoughtful, sensitively designed public spaces built in New York in years.” There was just one voice of dissent but that was quickly stomped my Geoff Manaugh of BLDGBLOG, who described the critique on Twitter as […]
Colin Ferguson Says:
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Utter and complete nonsense. I don’t live in New York, and have never been to the Highline, but I find your dogmatic dismissal to be quite hysterical. I do know the Barbican very well, however, and can confirm that the Highwalk/podium areas are one of the greatest public spaces in London (only the equally-elevated, equally-modernist terraces at the Southbank Centre come close). They’re great for pedestrians, they lift you up above the danger and the worst of the pollution of the cars, and they provide a space that is sociable, architecturally dramatic, and safe at any time of day or night: a highly impressive acheivement. The walkway between the legs of the low-rise block that straddles the lake, with its views of the church, is just stunning, as is the detailing everywhere, and sitting on the plaza outside the arts centre by the lake on a warm summers evening is simply my favourite thing to do in London (even £3.50 for plastic bottle of beer seems reasonable if you get to drink it there). I’ve never been through the Beech Street tunnel before, and barely knew of its existence before I read this site, and can only assume that those walking through it are either (criminally) ignorant of what lies above them, or are simply in a hurry and are taking the quickest, most direct route possible with litte regard to quality of experience or aesthetics.

Really, this whole article is shockingly poorly thought out. It begins with a premise (essentially, not at street level = DANGER!), then attempts to back it up with examples of unattractive/dangerous things that aren’t at street level. However, many of those things aren’t actually unattractive or dangerous at all; they just assumed to be because, well, they aren’t at street level: the evidence ends up being interpreted in light of the theory, rather than the other way around. Very poor show, old boy.
Mat Says:
August 25th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Hey Admin,

In your comment on June 19th, 2009 at 5:52 am for the “It Takes Decades for a Park to Mature by that Time What is Below May be Bad” post, you said
“The point I was trying to make is that the High Line will come into its own in landscape terms around 20 years from now. “.

Above, at June 11th, 2009 at 2:13 pm you say
“In 20 years the Highline will be a skatepark”

Which is it? Or do you really like skateparks?

Have you an opinion, used or been to this object or place? Tell us what you like don't like about it, or post any specs/info about it:

More lists...