Catwalks between buildings. Sidewalks in the sky. I like it. It’s one of those futurist ideas that people thought we would have by 2001 (along with air cars and personal rocket-packs), except that 2001 looks depressingly like 1960. I don’t know of any city that has an upper pedestrian level, although a few have elevated trains (Chicago, The Bronx, L.A.) and bridges between buildings (Los Angeles City Hall, White Memorial Hospital) and parks above street level (California Plaza on Bunker Hill, with its artificial lake). Individualism? Lack of cooperative planning? Penny-pinching? Lack of creativity?
I also think you guys ought to give underground some more consideration. It doesn’t have to be like a basement office. You can build some very attractive sunlit atriums underground, with a great view, landscaping, waterfalls, etc. It’s just a matter of design and engineering.
In any office building, there’s always someone who doesn’t get any view at all. In a skyscraper, it’s the people who have offices in the center of the structure. In an underground development built around an atrium, it might be the people who have offices near the outside periphery of the structure.
More about the catwalks: it is true that they would also make evacuation easier. The parachutes might be a good idea if parachutes and training in their use were provided as basic safety equipment to each tenant of the tower.