First of all, I believe bridges like the one proposed for the City Creek Center are a bad idea. I was also disappointed with the really poor public outreach effort in arriving at the decision about the policy changes last year. These are the reasons I voted against the general policy about sky bridges a year ago. The latest vote was not about sky bridges in general, but about whether this particular project had sufficiently met several key criteria that the approval of the sky bridge was subject to. The criteria were clearly not met. Why then did I vote for it? This is a complex question that ultimately boils down to several legislative intent statements and conditions regarding the project as a whole, and a strategic decision to stay involved in discussions that I hope will continue to improve the project.

   My opinion about sky bridges in general is based on my goals and values for our downtown. Clearly, not everyone agrees. Not even all urban planners, designers and professionals in this arena agree. The developers of City Creek Center have a whole army of planners and designers who think this sky bridge is good and beneficial. Some of them may be paid to represent this opinion, though I have also heard from many professionals not connected to the project who think it’s a fine idea, too.

   Some say that City Creek Center will revitalize downtown. I respectfully disagree. No single project can or ever will revitalize an entire central business district. City Creek Center will greatly revitalize two blocks of downtown—something I think no one would argue about—and can provide positive reinforcement for other good things to happen around these blocks. Internal to the project, the open space, the water features, the mix of residential, office, retail and restaurants are all wonderful amenities, and certainly a step in the right direction in the evolution of our downtown. There are many commendable aspects to the project.

   Some argue that the developers of City Creek Center should be able to do whatever they want—after all it’s their money. Actually, it’s not really their money. Seasoned developers seldom put much of their personal assets into a project. They use other people’s assets. I doubt any of the development partners affiliated with the City Creek Center has substantially put their own personal resources on the line. I hope no one is offended by my saying so, but even corporate money is still generally other people’s money—employees, partners, investors, lenders, perhaps even you and me inasmuch as large corporations are funded in part by private investment accounts such as pension plans, stocks, 401K’s, IRA’s, etc. I’m not suggesting that this is a good or bad, it’s just the way things are with development.

   As notable as the $1.5 billion investment in City Creek Center is, I am at least as equally impressed with the shop owner or business entrepreneur in our downtown who has leveraged her life savings, borrowed against his kid’s college fund, or mortgaged her home to start and build a business. While small in comparison in value, this investment is greater in many ways because it represents a leap of faith for the individual who puts it all on the line to follow a dream. If we ever lose sight of this, then there is truly no way to bring vitality to our entire downtown.  

   The success of the downtown ultimately will come from the synergy of every part of downtown working together with every other part of the downtown to create a great environment throughout. If done well, City Creek Center or any other project will contribute to this synergy. If not done well, they will become detractors to the good things that others are trying to do. The synergy does not come from what happens within the project, but how it interfaces with and builds the city around it. Anyone can build a project, but it takes everyone to build a city!

   From my perspective, Salt Lake City's downtown has suffered greatly over many decades due to a series of policies aimed at narrowly defined economic goals. Could it be that these policies were the result of our election cycles, corporate interests that provide substantial funding for elections, and the desire of some elected officials to demonstrate “economic progress” that rewards the same corporate interests (it’s a vicious cycle, and probably a topic for another time)? Perhaps this is overly pessimistic. Maybe it would be more true to say that those who make decisions sometimes don’t fully understand the long-term consequences of their decisions, and more unfortunately never engage nor connect with those who may have solutions and answers that will help them make better decisions.  

   For me, this issue has never really been about the sky bridge. The sky bridge is just a symptom of a larger issue, which in my opinion, is how to use the opportunity of the City Creek Center project to create great streets. Great streets make great cities! Have you ever been to a great city that did not have active, walkable, vibrant, and memorable streets? Streets are the life-blood of a city. It’s not a formula. Streets can be very different—from a grand boulevard to a narrow alley—and be successful. Great streets are really the result of an attitude about creating great environments. And if you find a way to address this broader issue, then it doesn’t really matter if the sky bridge is there or not—the sky bridge becomes irrelevant. 

   In studying the history of cities through millennia of city building, I have observed that the one part of the city that lasts forever (quite literally) is its streets. People, buildings, infrastructure, transportation systems, even parks and public spaces to a lesser degree, all eventually change. Our own city tells this story. The streets were laid out. The buildings have come and gone. The streets remain. The streets, or at least the space occupied by the streets, are constant. When the streets are regarded they bring beauty, vitality, and industry to a place. When they are abandoned or marginalized to pure utility, they do just the opposite. 

   It’s a subtle difference, but the difference really boils down to the downtown as a place where people go (and consequently they leave) versus a place that people want to be. Creating an environment where businesses can thrive and people can live, for me, is about creating great streets, which is far more important than just creating jobs or generating revenue.  

   Many of our economic policies focus on jobs and revenue, which can be good things in the right context, but not when they come at the expense of creating a city of beauty, vitality and sustainability. Jobs and revenue, at any rate, are not really created by government. They are created by risk-takers, entrepreneurs, and hard working individuals. Which reminds me of the saying, “If you give a man a fish, he’ll eat for a day. If you teach him how to fish, he’ll eat for a lifetime.” When you create an environment for businesses to succeed—and I mean the home-grown, home-town businesses that are built, owned, operated and staffed by individuals who are fully vested in the community and that are the backbone of our economy—then you’ve made real progress that will last not only for months or years, but for generations.

   If there is no lasting value then ultimately the short-term economic policies—trends if you will—will fail. The malls we have just torn down to make way for City Creek Center were based on trends. Some mall-type trends in the new development could ultimately insure the same fate. The sky bridge, quite frankly, is one of these trends. Though if the project is developed in a way that when the trend fails it doesn’t all fail, then perhaps there is some hope. Given the intense negotiations with the developers over the past days, weeks and months, I feel marginally comfortable that we’ve come far enough with the evolution in the design of the development that when the sky bridge fails—and eventually it will fail, either figuratively or literally—that other parts of the project can endure and adapt.

   The value of the sky bridge depends on your perspective and what you are trying to achieve. I value the good things about our downtown that we inherited from past generations, and want to leave a legacy of good things for future generations. I define these “good things” as vibrant and active streets and public places, thoughtful and inviting buildings and landscapes, where businesses thrive and people can live. Some will disagree with my values or my idea of what the “good things” are. I’m OK with that.  

   In the end (or maybe in the beginning, since the rest is yet to come) I voted for the sky bridge because I felt that I had pushed as hard as I could. There was no interest on the part of the developer, nor will on the part of the council, to go any further. I hope it is enough for these two blocks to succeed, not just for the next twenty years or even fifty years, but for generations.  

   Ultimately, though, the revitalization of the rest of the downtown will require an even more monumental effort than what we’ve gone through with the City Creek Center to create the environment that I’ve described above. We have a good start with the vision of the Downtown Rising initiative crafted by our downtown stakeholders. We will need to make many changes to our policies, our plans, our ordinances, and our implementation tools to make it over the remaining hurdles.  

   Enough already. Back to work!

Back