Quote Originally Posted by Khorasaurus View Post
Yes and no. Downtown Detroit retail declined for a number of reasons, but cutting off automobile traffic from driving past [[and parking in front of) the storefronts certainly didn't help. If people don't drive down a street, they won't ever know what retailers are there.

The only way pedestrian malls work is if you have a ton of existing pedestrian traffic [[like New York has in places) or a major anchor that acts as a destination. When Detroit had Hudson's, it had those conditions. But just as it lost the conditions, it installed a pedestrian mall [[or similar idea..."transit" mall) which just accelerated the decline.

I like the current configuration of Woodward in that area, especially with the new streetcars, although I think it needs more on-street parking.
The pedestrian mall only affected one corner of downtown Detroit. What happened to the rest of downtown, or the city for that matter? Grand River and Greenfield suffered a worse fate than Woodward and Gratiot. This corner of downtown didn't suffer a more dramatic deterioration than other parts of the city. I find it hard to believe that the pedestrian mall was much of a factor at all.

Again, I bring up Fulton mall because it did indeed decline and also rebounded without changing the set up of being a pedestrian mall. That it is a pedestrian mall probably has nothing to do with either its success or failure.

I guess I could follow your argument if you said that places that propose these pedestrian malls tend to have other factors which make it hard for urban shopping districts to be successful. New York happens to be a place where urban shopping districts have remained viable. If that is what you are saying then I agree.