The City of London tried to take its pedestrians up in the sky with the Pedways, rather than underground. It was never especially successful.
Although nowhere near as extensive as Toronto's system, Canary Wharf has a similar vibe in its underground and enclosed malls. Makes sense given a lot of it was built by the Toronto-based firm Olympia & York.
Minneapolis has a skyway system which connects a bunch of buildings in its downtown with above-ground enclosed bridges, so that workplaces, shops and restaurants are all accessible by temperature-controlled pedestrian paths, often involving snaking through office hallways and up and down escalators. This is entirely motivated by reducing the need to be outdoors in the cold winters; Minneapolis is very low-density and car-centric compared to Toronto. But the dynamic you describe of private business owners piecing together a connected system out of self-interest is similar.
There are many of these in the former Soviet Union too. But usually functioning as underpasses (filled with shops and cafes) at busy intersections rather than a full network. There is also a great example in Belgrade.
There are also apartment buildings/condo buildings that connect to The Path, meaning there are people who can leave their home to shop or go to work, without having to go outside in inclement weather. In the winter, I get to the AGO with minimal risk by taking the GO commuter train downtown to Union Station, then walking north through The Path, emerging a couple of blocks from the gallery. It's a very welcome alternative to this senior citizen!
Do you think part of it is the half-radial nature of transport into Toronto, where it is a big city but there is a clearly defined center that can only be approached from one hemisphere? Whereas in say Manhattan, even though its an island, you have both the Financial District and Midtown, and Midtown is approachable from all sides? San Francisco is sort of similar in that the city center is concentrated and butted up against the Bay, but perhaps its just not big enough?
They do (unsurprisingly) seem more common in cities with cold winters or unbearably hot summers. Maybe they are generally only worthwhile there - though at least some of their advantages are still relevant in temperate climates.
Personal anecdata: I find the City of London such an interesting and agreeable pedestrian environment that it is hard to imagine preferring a tunnel unless the weather was 'Canadian winter' awful. On the other hand, when I worked in Westminster I had to navigate Parliament Square every day. I found it so overcrowded and stressful that I would gladly have taken a tunnel had one been available!
It might be something like that. What would be the exact mechanism? I note that quite a few of the other cities that have pedestrian metros (e.g. Montreal, Tokyo, Osaka) are also half-radial.
I am very skeptical of underground (or overground) pedestrian walkways, especially in India. The only reason they are built are to remove at-grade crossings for pedestrians so that motorists are not "inconvenienced". Maybe it's the same in the developed world?
The City of London tried to take its pedestrians up in the sky with the Pedways, rather than underground. It was never especially successful.
Although nowhere near as extensive as Toronto's system, Canary Wharf has a similar vibe in its underground and enclosed malls. Makes sense given a lot of it was built by the Toronto-based firm Olympia & York.
For anyone interested, there is an excellent 2013 documentary on London's Pedway network available online: https://vimeo.com/80787092
Sydney also has a series of these in the city center, which have retail and restaurants in them. A blessing in the rain!
Minneapolis has a skyway system which connects a bunch of buildings in its downtown with above-ground enclosed bridges, so that workplaces, shops and restaurants are all accessible by temperature-controlled pedestrian paths, often involving snaking through office hallways and up and down escalators. This is entirely motivated by reducing the need to be outdoors in the cold winters; Minneapolis is very low-density and car-centric compared to Toronto. But the dynamic you describe of private business owners piecing together a connected system out of self-interest is similar.
Similar in Sapporo. Empty streets in the winter and bustling tunnels.
There are many of these in the former Soviet Union too. But usually functioning as underpasses (filled with shops and cafes) at busy intersections rather than a full network. There is also a great example in Belgrade.
There are also apartment buildings/condo buildings that connect to The Path, meaning there are people who can leave their home to shop or go to work, without having to go outside in inclement weather. In the winter, I get to the AGO with minimal risk by taking the GO commuter train downtown to Union Station, then walking north through The Path, emerging a couple of blocks from the gallery. It's a very welcome alternative to this senior citizen!
Very interesting!
Do you think part of it is the half-radial nature of transport into Toronto, where it is a big city but there is a clearly defined center that can only be approached from one hemisphere? Whereas in say Manhattan, even though its an island, you have both the Financial District and Midtown, and Midtown is approachable from all sides? San Francisco is sort of similar in that the city center is concentrated and butted up against the Bay, but perhaps its just not big enough?
Great post. Never knew about this!
Harbin, yes, other ‘cold’ locales?
They do (unsurprisingly) seem more common in cities with cold winters or unbearably hot summers. Maybe they are generally only worthwhile there - though at least some of their advantages are still relevant in temperate climates.
Personal anecdata: I find the City of London such an interesting and agreeable pedestrian environment that it is hard to imagine preferring a tunnel unless the weather was 'Canadian winter' awful. On the other hand, when I worked in Westminster I had to navigate Parliament Square every day. I found it so overcrowded and stressful that I would gladly have taken a tunnel had one been available!
Nice! Thank you for sharing!
It might be something like that. What would be the exact mechanism? I note that quite a few of the other cities that have pedestrian metros (e.g. Montreal, Tokyo, Osaka) are also half-radial.
Fascinating!
Vancouver has much less severe weather than other Canadian cities so there’s less weather related benefit.
Calgary and Edmonton do have pedestrian systems - but these take the form of enclosed bridges connecting key buildings in downtown above ground
There's a dark comedy about these tunnels called Way downtown its a indie film from the late 90s earl 00s worth a watch
I am very skeptical of underground (or overground) pedestrian walkways, especially in India. The only reason they are built are to remove at-grade crossings for pedestrians so that motorists are not "inconvenienced". Maybe it's the same in the developed world?