Good news! Done right, the skybridge will be a visual and functional asset to the city. I would hope that it is not so "transparent" as to be "uninteresting", i.e., let every element of the bridge have rich detail and be sculptural in its own way... not just a glass tube with minimum or hidden structure. Think great physical structures, not camouflage. While the city does not need a St Louis arch (it has the mountains all around it), when you get to something the scale and location of the skybridge, it should be full of light (at night) and make a statement rather than hiding (it will never compete with the mountains, so stop that spurious argument). Don't let the etched art work hinder the view out or be "the" design element (it doesn't fit the scale), don't let the bridge become "visual musak" -- please let it sing.

I'm happy that this may FINALLY be ending. I loved the sky bridge from the day it was announced...

HOWEVER, I am really surprised. I wasn't aware that this vote wasn't whether they build or not necessarily as much as it was whether they met the criteria that was given for permission to build.

vote for the bridge. The key is if the development is more open to the street that what we had.

St Louis Arch and Seattle Space Needle? Taubman is really REACHING with that comment. The city council once again dismisses all of the data showing how skybridges are a detriment to cities - that is why cities around the country are REMOVING skybridges that went up in the 70's. I find it very telling that Soren Simonsen - an architect and certified planner - is the only member of the city council to vote against amending the Master Plan. It will be interesting to see in 10-15 years when the skybridge is REMOVED from downtown.

"Critics fear the skybridge will block lines of sight to the mountains"

People it's called DOWNTOWN, if you cant see a mountain either ride an elevator to the top of the tallest building or drive to the suburbs or better yet directly to the mountains. If this city doesn't start to build up we gonna have a never ending sea of housing developments across the entire valley. All this Commercial Building outside the downtown area should have been banned and only allowed downtown.

I cant wait to see a real sky line...SKYSCRAPER!
Productivity and all the things that make a city...a city

I don't get how this will block the view of the mountains. Don't the buildings all around do that already? Even so, this would block the view of people in a certain spot on Main St. We're not talking about the view from the entire city. So if your view is blocked of the mountains, move back ten feet and you'll be fine.

The skybridge will prevent auto-pedestrian and train-pedestrian accidents, traffic will run smoother with fewer people at cross walks, and with the exits to the bridge being closer to the street than in the original plan, pedestrian traffic won't be discouraged from visiting businesses along Main St. Sounds like a good idea to me.

I sarcastically laughed at the comment that the sky bridge will block the mountains. Oh please??? What kind of joke is the person trying to make or prove? The tall buildings downtown already block the mountain views. Should we tear down all the buildings and build them downwards just for a view? You can get a view of the mountains by walking in certain places to see one at anytime. I've always thought it a great idea having the bridge. It is in a good place, makes good connections for the people that will be there in the area. Learning from the past of other sky bridges in other states, they're doing a good job of doing it right this time. It's good that the vote is coming to a conclusion allowing the bridge. I say go for it and have the bridge built!

I still think the skybridge is a poor urban planning idea: the bridge will keep people in the air, on the second level, and will not encourage pedestrian traffic on the ground, in the fresh air. We need an unobstructed view of Main Street, north and south. the city is in danger of building another faux-village like Gateway.