Architectural bodies have been instrumental in giving feasible solutions to idealized proposals of cultural entities and the government. Architects are instrumental in responding to the concerns of both the commercial entities and the public in giving an integrated policy (Loukaitou-Sideris &. Ehrenfeucht, 2009). In addition, cultural forces have agitated for a traditional architectural setting whereby culture is integrated into daily activities. This calls for sidewalk spaces that can allow for setting of public emblems and interaction. On the other hand, commercial activities constrain the growth of culture in towns.
Academics have complained of the sidewalk policy as ignoring the preferences of the public and consumers. It also ignores the concept of free markets whereby commercial activities control the space in which they operate in the same (McEachern, 2008). This criticism rides on the idea that the government and academics make assumptions of problems in the city. This ignores the feelings of the public of whom the changes are made for the same. This suggests that the public should push for proposals to improving their interests in the city. In this sense, the public pulls away from the stake from the academics. Other critiques herald the policy as one-sided since it only concentrates on the public and constrains the growth of small businesses (Kleniewski &. Thomas, 2010).