Note that I’m not talking about the ones that are start and end on sidewalks outside and whose only purpose is to get people across a road without a crosswalk, I’m talking about these things that directly connect two building interiors: https://teddit.net/r/LiminalSpace/search?q=skybridge&restrict_sr=on

Elevated walkways, often called skybridges, connect two buildings together with a covered, climate controlled corridor that’s suspended over the ground. I know a lot walkable city advocates hate these because they’re most often used to connect two buildings that are separated by a busy road, and are seen as a band-aid over reducing car dependency at best. And to be fair, that’s a very common reason they’re used. But, the problem there is with using them in place of proper urban planning, as opposed to as a part of it.

I believe that elevated walkway can actually be actively beneficial to walkability when actually used right, and used in tandem with other walkability planning. They have many benefits over leaving one building, walking across even a pedestrian-only area, and entering the next building. When it’s sunny and pleasant, walking outside is great. But in places where it’s really cold, really hot, rains a lot, and especially if it snows a lot, it can become a problem. If you have snow blanketing the ground for half the year, it’s really not reasonable to expect everyone to walk outside to get between every building, but the solutions for that are, driving directly between covered parking areas, or some form of covered walkways. A snow or ice covered ground can be very dangerous, especially to the elderly, those with disabilities or other medical issues, or people with strollers or carrying heavy bags or boxes, etc etc. A walkway like this makes going between buildings without any vehicle a lot more accessible for those people, because the elevated walkway typically has no elevation change from the regular floor of the building (as in, no step you need to go over), and is protected from the elements and hazards on the ground.

For example: a university in my city has a lot of elevated walkways, which essentially forms a network connecting every building on campus to each other. It’s also very non car-centric, with no vehicles allowed in the main campus area, and you’re definitely expected to only walk or bike around campus. The university is built on the peak of of a fairly tall mountain, and is generally colder than the mostly temperate city I live in, so it’s not uncommon for it to snow there when it’s merely raining in the city proper, and also for water on the ground to ice over at night when it wouldn’t at the lower elevations. I once visited it, on a winter evening where it was the only place around me whose puddles had frozen (so I wasn’t prepared for ice at all), and I immediately slipped and literally fell on my ass while leaving the bus terminal and trying to make my way to the main campus. Needless to say, I was extremely thankful for their elevated walkway network once I reached the campus. The walkways were also heated by the campus HVAC system, so walking through them was very comfortable without needing to put on a jacket. I was okay, but the fall I took definutely hurt, and would have been dangerous for an elderly person, or someone with a stroller. Keep in mind that there are many cities whose entire area ice over nonstop for parts of or even most of the year.

In short, elevated walkways can be good for walkability in less temperate places, and just because they’re used by bad city planners to skirt around the issues created by car traffic, doesn’t mean that’s their only use case.

What do you think? Do you agree or disagree? Why? Are there any other thoughts you have, or maybe you want to share your own experiences, whether positive or negative, regarding elevated walkways?