I don't get your city council? Every large city has sky bridges they actually enhance the downtown areas that were dying before. They do not hurt but bring people back to the downtown area. Viable people with cash to spend. Hello, who are you people? This sounds like something that SLC needs desperately. I lived there 10 years ago and come back occasionally. Downtown was dead years ago and you guys did nothing. The planners want to breath some life back into it and give it the class that it deserves and you are killing it.

It would be nice to think the city would allow those who patronize downtown Salt Lake to have the choice of using the skybridge or the cross walk rather than simply trying to manipulate people to use a specific area.

Also, the view from the skybridge might be an attraction. Why is the cross walk so important?

Since I don't live in Salt Lake, I'm not a regular there. But, when I do make a trip into the city, the skybridge view would be an attraction for me.

Here's a thought. Remember the words from "Field of Dreams." Yes, if you build it they will come! Don't eliminate the bridge in "the hopes" of having people on the street. Be poactive. I have long said that the problem with downtown SLC relates directly to there being no real attraction. Give people what they want and you would need to beat them off the street with a stick. This is not complicated, folks. It's simple supply and demand economics/planning. But I must warn you, it will take some creativity. Are the leaders in SLC up to the task? Unfortunately they haven't been over the past 8 years. Good luck.

Tim Chambless says he is concerned for the view of the mountains. That is a cop out. I have stood on Main Street at the point of the proposed bridge and looked north on Main toward the mountains. Has anyone ever really done that? It's a very narrow valley surrounded by buildings. The only view is of the communications towers on Ensign Peak. Now there is an argument for preserving a view corridor. I say we make a deal: Tear down those communications towers and then we'll talk. Of course I know that's not realistic. They are needed. Funny, same argument for the bridge. Get it? Come on folks, do some real planning, not just use planning concepts as lame excuses to not make hard decisions. Good planners use concepts and principles; they don't let themselves be controlled by them.

If you want to vitalize downtown let people that KNOW what they are doing do it and get the dang "planners" out of the way. If this was being done by some well known developer from a big city this would have been done already. But, since the LDS church is a part of that it has to be scrutinized to the inth degree. Get off your liberal high horses and let good business people do what is good for the city.

There are no communications towers on Ensign Peak.

I was just in Calgary about 10 days ago and found the skybridges quite interesting. I didn't have time to check them out, but did take a picture of them to show my kids. I don't really understand the uproar over a bridge in a high rise area. People get their underwear in a knot over things that really don't make sense to me.

Skybridges don't work in most places. Look at cities like Spokane and Des Moines whose downtown areas died thanks to sky bridges.
The best way to make downtown better is to insure that City Creek flows into the downtown area, encourages pedestrian access and not designed to keep people in the complex were they shop and leave the area.

Re comment by Johny Fairplay. I guess that would be your little secret. You might want to do a web search on "Ensign Peak Communications Towers." Of course, giving you the beneffit of the doubt you may be thinking of the park. There is a difference.

The above statements in favor of the skybridge are certainly meaningful. Listen up folks. What's the arguement? Manipulation? Sounds like it to me.

I'll bet noe of you previous commentors actually live downtown. Sorry we couldn't include a Walmart in the City Creek Center for you- and front door parking for your Ford Excursions.

For those of us who live in Salt Lake City we recognize the necessity of more prudent planning than your native cookie cutter neighborhoods.

For those who are so concerned about the "view" from Main, does it occur to them that every single building in SLC blocks a view of something else? This view business is just a red herring to stop progress, in my opinion. And the skybridge can be an attractive and photogenic addition in itself. Let's move forward on this.

Mr. Benberg,
The fact that the LDS Church is the developer of the project has absolutely nothing to do with the commssion's deliberations. Get a grip.

What downtown needs is more skybridges.
There should be one in each block of the project.
They contribute greatly to access of the people who live and shop and visit, and even give good views up the street.
Stop trying to tell other people how to build their property.

The last thing we need is more skybridges, it is the best way to make downtown worse that it is.

Cascade Rick said it well.
If you want views, buy up all the other buildings and tear them down.

Lets remember More Views this will be over PUBLIC PROPERTY so it thoroughly needs to be discussed since it is everyone's property.

Anyone read Atlas Shrugged? Why does the LDS church, the funder for the project, have to be tied down to the whim of politicians who want to force them to use their goodness, and their money, to benefit other business owners who couldn't be profitable on their own? If you can't attract shoppers on your own merits, why must you force a better businessman to do it for you? You cannot in good conscience take millions of dollars from the LDS church, or any other person or organization, and give it to some paltry business on Main Street.

Get the pedestrians up in the air, NOT crossing Main Street. We drive there, or try to.

There's plenty of people to go around. (pun intended.)

Everyone's property? Really?
Does it belong to the citizens of South Salt Lake, West Valley, Sandy, Midvale, San Francisco, Baghdad, Honolulu, and Peoria?

I'll bet the City of Salt Lake believes it belongs to the City of Salt Lake.

Where do YOU live?

More Views: It belongs to the citizens of Salt Lake. They have a right to say what goes on over the street. Oh yes since you are trying to bait I live in Salt Lake

What is a bridge most useful for? Connecting two areas that would be very difficult or impossible cross. If the bridge were being built from the City Creek Center to the South end of Main Street, the bridge would serve a useful function. The function of the proposed skybridge its to connect two pieces of ONE SINGLE DEVELOPMENT. The real function of the bridge to maximize profits for the single publicly traded company that is the partner with CCRI--Taubman Partners.

I disagree with jmdspk on his assessment of skybridges in Spokane. I went to Spokane frequently for work while living in Seattle and I never would have ventured around downtown without them, especially during the winter. One of the reasons Spokane's downtown suffered was the failure of Frederick and Nelson in the late 90s, a higher-end department store that was an achor for downtown. F&N was replaced by a bank, not much draw for a shopper. I cannot speak to Des Moines, having never spent time there. My belief is that the opposition is based in opposition to the church. The city council can go back to their constituents and say, "we took the church's money and let them develop their property, but only on our terms. Abusing the church while expanding and taking advantage of the religious divide is what got Pebble Andersen re-elected.

The last time I paused in the middle of Main Street to contemplate the view to the North, I was almost hit by two cars as well as TRAX. Let's get on with the sky bridge to eliminate this safety hazard!

the city creek center will be a great addition to downtown Salt Lake City and Main Street. housing, retail, and office space is much needed in the central business district. the site plan provides all of this with open space, which is exciting.

the skybridge issue should be thoroughly examined and thought through by both the planning commission and the city council. the fact is a skybridge will take shoppers, visitors, and citizens off of Main Street and inhibit pedestrian flow into the surrounding downtown area. This is the biggest concern!

You mean I could go to a sky bridge, enjoy the view ensign peak (even with communication towers), possibly sitting on a bench? Why would I want to do that?!

The alternative is SO appealing. I can stand on a crowded sidewalk on main street. Better yet, I could stand in main street and hope I am not hit by a car or TRAX train. The city provided benches are the most amazing thing, the view corridor, looking at a mall on the east & west with the cars passing and TRAX stopping in front of you every few minutes. Can't imagine why I might like to be elevated in a busy city, and be able to look at what God created.

This sky bridge should be 50 feet wide, with 15 feet on each side dedicated to benches to enjoy the view corridor, and only the middle 20 being used as passage from each side.

This has everything, church, politics and money (in SLC sometimes they are all the same thing. Rocky was right about two things and this was one of them. Look both ways before crossing the street and you'll be just fine. We do not need another monument to greed in this town. If they can't make it without a sky bridge, they need to build somewhere else.

Having lived in Spokane for many years I can tell you the skywalks KILLED downtown. There was no one on the streets which led to perception that downtown was dead. People stopped going there. Eventually it killed most of downtown. It was only when they started bringing street traffic back that it was brought back to life.

Then there is yorktowns comments. How said about taking millions of dollars and giving it to Main Street? Talk about reading something into something. You can design a complex to compliment the area or keep people in your center only. The place should compliment not take away.

Also lets remember that many of those small business suffer today because of subsidies given to big box retailers, tax abatements to chain stores, and allowing big companies to not follow zoning.

The skybridge is a non issue really. City creek is simply two malls with the roof taken off. You need to give people a reason to move south down Main St. When complete, people will simply move between the two blocks with or without the skybridge. The bridge does imporve the chances of second level retail being successful. The introducing of condos will help, but most of the condos at City Creek will be owned by out of towners who come for 2 weeks out of the year. So far, the city has done a poor job of promoting economic development and to attract a sizeable enough draw to southern Main. The best thing the City can do is start working on making the blocks south and west of City Creek more attractive places to live, work, visit, shop, etc. so that those property owners will be willing to invest into redevelopment.

jmdspk,

Spokane died long long before those skybridges were built, my fellow washingtonian. I think a bridge of any kind makes a lot of sense considering a light rail train 300 feet long runs down that street. It will make main street much easier to cross and access the two parts of the project.

my 2c

I've many times been there on the street in question, and I honestly have to ask... What view corridor? As it is right now with no obstruction you can't see much of anything up north, just a tiny clip/edge of mountain... nothing at all fantastic or beautiful. So what's the big deal or issue here? Build the sky bridge. Then on/in the bridge people can view that tiny blip of mountainside safely (without standing in the middle of the street or trying to avoid an oncoming TRAX train).

Hey Urban Planner, since CC owns virtually all of the property on those two blocks east and west of main who are they inhibiting foot traffic from, themselves? Or are you talking about the people who need to go south of 100 so on Main. Those who need to go to other sections of downtown will have to; oh I don’t know use the street. Are they not putting escalators on both sides of main to give easy access to the bridge both getting on and off of it? Isn’t this really an elevated crosswalk? The argument that it will impede foot traffic to other areas of downtown doesn’t make sense. They destroyed DT long ago with the two original malls, without a crosswalk, then again with TRAX, the again by closing main to the north. Don’t tell us who have lived here our whole lives and watched the city destroy DT that this is the issue that will doom Main Street. Please you’re sounding uneducated at best.

I and others I know fail to understand the obsession with downtown Salt Lake City, the "importance" of it etc. The media and some SLC and Utah government people act like it's a vital component to the valley or even the state as a whole. Why??

Do they really think, no matter how many great stores they put there, that people are going to drive for miles and miles from all across the valley and beyond just to shop there? Why do that when you have all you need in other surrounding cities and suburbs?

Fashion Place Mall and the now defunct Cottonwood Mall sufficed me just fine. Then there's also places like Wal-Mart, Target, FYE, Barnes & Noble, etc. all around me in the Cottonwood Heights and immediate surrounding area... why drive clear into precious downtown Salt Lake for my needs when they're met right by my house?

My only reasons for coming into Salt Lake are for my job, concerts, a Jazz game, a Temple Square visit or other special events. And I'm betting it's the same for most in the valley... I doubt there are very many outlaying residents who make the drive to shop.

I think the Sky bridge could only serve 2 useful purposes:

1- Act as an attraction (for those who like bridges or the potential view(s))

2- Act as a pedestrian convinence for a myriad of reasons (inclement weather, ease of shopping, etc.)

The only competeing goals as I see it are getting people into downtown for commercial gain and preserving downtown's beauty. I can see arguments on both sides of these issues, but ultimately the goal is to provide an aesthetically pleasing downtown enviornment that draws in residents and consumers. Building this bridge is in harmony with that goal. What are the alternatives?

Not building this bridge might save a view or two and might keep people on the streets, but in the end won't draw in more residents (who probably want an option to stay out of the rain and snow) or consumers (who want the same). Who knows, maybe people walking on the bridge will look down and see all the shops on Main Steet.

I believe the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages for this bridge.

I challenge anyone who doesn't want this bridge to present their ideas for drawing residents and consumers into the downtown area.