Over the last few months, crossing the Pathumwan intersection on foot was a near-impossible task requiring pedestrians to zig-zag along the mazes of malls and footpaths, as the pedestrian bridges were closed-off by a major construction site.
But that's all in the past now. Construction was completed and the recent opening of a skywalk has rejoined the four corners of the junction -- connecting shopping malls with a contemporary art museum and one of Bangkok's liveliest squares.
The 300 million baht project, funded by a private company, has already proved attractive to the selfie stick-toting crowds, local and international.
In the days that followed the inauguration, visitors came to stand under the lily pad-like structures -- a budget-looking version of Singapore's Garden by the Bay tree shapes -- decorated by 13 street artists. The elevated walkway has become a utility as well as an attraction.
The junction is the latest addition to Bangkok's city centre elevated walkways covering the business/shopping zones. With the new Pathumwan walkway, you can now stroll from National Stadium's BTS station to the Ratchaprasong intersection and even the Pratunam area without touching the ground, passing through no less than four shopping malls.
While skywalks appear to be a convenient fix for the city's notoriously unfriendly footpaths, how do they fit into the overall urban landscape and development of Bangkok? Do we risk seeing the city divided into two levels -- one for the middle-class BTS commuters and the other for those who roam and work street-side? And how does the elevation of foot traffic improve the walkability of the city, despite the "clean-up" campaign earnestly carried out by City Hall?
Life asked two urban planners and architects for their views if skywalks are a solution or a complication.
Asst Prof Peeradorn Kaewlai, Thammasat University's Faculty of Architecture and Planning
Do you think that skywalks are a good initiative?
In central and very densely occupied locations like in Siam, where the footpaths aren't good, it encourages people to walk more.
In Siam alone, the number of people converging there easily reaches 120,000 per day. Footpaths aren't large enough to contain that number of people.
Meanwhile, the number of cars isn't going to reduce anytime soon and much of Bangkok's railway system isn't finished yet. So skywalks are quite convenient.
If you don't travel by BTS, you can also park your car at one spot and then walk to another. In a way, it's helping to reduce the traffic as well.
Are they an ad hoc solution to Bangkok's pavement problem?
For too long, we've let cars rule the city. But after the city was developed this way, no one wanted to walk. Skywalks, by encouraging people to travel on foot, help solve some circulation problems for the time being.
The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) doesn't have a sufficient budget to address the problem single-handedly, so it's quite fortunate that private sector enterprises are making a contribution.
The skywalks connect BTS stations to shopping malls or link shopping malls themselves. Could it leave a part of the population out?
Since these businesses -- shopping malls in particular -- are at the origin of these skywalks, they should then act as a public space. Meaning that they should open ways for people to travel through at all times; not just when the mall is open.
The BMA has been carrying out a "Clean Up Campaign" to clear out street vendors and reclaim the city's pavements for pedestrians. What's the use if we are to build skywalks anyway?
Interestingly, the skywalk linking the Ratchaprasong intersection to Pratunam is built above footpaths that are relatively clean and clear since the ban on street vendors was implemented.
This means that we now have twice the amount of space previously available to walk in the city centre. The skywalk is therefore an alternative. People can choose whether they want to walk at street level or on the elevated route.
What consequences will skywalks have on the economy at the street level?
I think that businesses found in malls and at the street level are quite different and cater to different needs. So there shouldn't be unfair competition, since they aren't selling the same items or services.
Are you in favour of more skywalks being built in the city?
It depends on the skywalk's purpose and location. I believe they should remain public spaces.
The new skywalk over the Pathumwan intersection is a great example, because it's richly decorated and becomes an attraction in itself. We actually lack this kind of space in Bangkok.
But I wouldn't want to see skywalks linking BTS stations to private condominium buildings or other such individual projects.
Khaisri Paksukcharern, deputy dean of Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Architecture
Do you think that skywalks are a good initiative?
To be perfectly honest, I feel that skywalks are a sign that we've let cars win in Bangkok. While pedestrians make up 70% of the city's population, the 30% of car drivers are being given priority -- because that's what it is.
The same applies to pedestrian crossing bridges at intersections -- they may be built for our safety but their main purpose is to avoid causing more traffic. This reasoning gives priority to cars, not people.
Are they an ad hoc solution to Bangkok's pavement problem?
Skywalks may be a quick fix, but I hope to see longer-term, more sustainable city planning. Certainly the skywalk over the Pathumwan intersection makes walking easier but urban development must be looked at as a whole. According to the BMA's new master plan, reliance on public transportation and the railway system will be higher in the future. Pedestrian areas should therefore be developed and footpaths improved to facilitate people's transit in the city.
The skywalks connect BTS stations to shopping malls or link shopping malls themselves. Could it leave a part of the population out?
It's no doubt a risk. In order to be truly democratic, public spaces must cater to mixed types of people, serve mixed utilities at varied times of the day.
They shouldn't discourage certain groups of people from utilising the facilities, by providing adequate equipment for the elderly and disabled people as well.
Finally, different people have different needs and we may not all want to step into malls. I understand that private businesses have a bit of a hidden agenda here, but we all have our right to go about the city at our own pace.
Finally, a multi-layered city shouldn't be developed to the detriment of the street level. It shouldn't be left out.
The BMA has been carrying out a "Clean Up Campaign" to clear out street vendors and reclaim the city's pavements for pedestrians. What's the use if we are to build skywalks anyway?
If we built pavements that were large enough -- reclaiming some of the road space that's used by cars -- the footpaths would be really practicable.
Street vendors could easily be managed too, if our pavements had standard dimensions, and no ban would be needed.
There is high demand for street stalls and a large part of the population relies on them for meals. We can't all eat in restaurants or shopping malls. At the same time, they provide income and employment for many.
The BMA should ensure that skywalks are an alternative, not a way out that avoids fixing our problems.
What consequences will skywalks have on the economy at street level?
The roadside businesses will die. That's what happened in several cities that developed such projects separating the city into two levels -- one for cars and another for people.
It won't only be the street vendors then, but the permanent shops too. Social interaction be lost as well.
Are you in favour of more skywalks being built in the city?
Most people will see skywalks' benefits: less exposure to the Sun, the pollution and facilitated transit. However, they might not see the bigger picture of Bangkok's development.
