Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Someone mentioned a while back in another thread something about not being able to design cities the way we did 100 years ago because "everything would be big box stores charging high rents that only chain stores can afford." I want to explore this a bit more. Are real estate developers bigger, more powerful, and richer today than they were in 1900? And if so, how does that affect cities in other ways?
Mixed-use development or TND (traditional neighborhood design) is for the most part outlawed thanks to zoning laws which guarantees the domination of big box retail at the expense of small business. In contrast to zoning, TND favors small business--ie., the size of shops and offices in a TND area are constrained by the residential units next door or above them. Which also promotes walkability and transit. Whereas a big box Walmart store has no such size constraints, being zoned in its own single-use commercial space far from any residence. Which in turn requires an automobile to get to and the construction of ginormous parking lots, perpetuating endless sprawl and automobile dependency. Though I'm sure the oil companies and auto industry aren't complaining in the least bit.
Developers are more powerful today because the laws favor big business and big industry at the expense of the small guy. One company becomes a mega-corporation by buying out (or driving out) its competitors. Concentrating wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands, a kind of modern-day feudalism. A hopelessly self-perpetuating cycle.
Last edited by cisco kid; 06-05-2012 at 05:13 PM..
Mixed-use development or TND (traditional neighborhood design) is for the most part outlawed thanks to zoning laws which guarantees the domination of big box retail at the expense of small business. In contrast to zoning, TND favors small business--ie., the size of shops and offices in a TND area are constrained by the residential units next door or above them. Which also promotes walkability and transit. Whereas a big box Walmart store has no such size constraints, being zoned in its own single-use commercial space far from any residence. Which in turn requires an automobile to get to and the construction of ginormous parking lots, perpetuating endless sprawl and automobile dependency. Though I'm sure the oil companies and auto industry aren't complaining in the least bit.
Good point. You do see a lot of big box stores in inner cities nowadays. A Walmart in NYC can take over an entire 10 or 20 story building (or just several floors of it) and become just as big as any suburban Walmart.
The scale of the buildings in skyscraper cities like NY encourages the proliferation of big box retail. The buildings are just so huge, that they are an ideal size for big box to operate in. Generally speaking I don't consider skyscraper cities to be the ideal for TND. Though NYC is so vast, some areas may be more ideal than others.
Good point. You do see a lot of big box stores in inner cities nowadays. A Walmart in NYC can take over an entire 10 or 20 story building (or just several floors of it) and become just as big as any suburban Walmart.
The scale of the buildings in skyscraper cities like NY encourages the proliferation of big box retail. The buildings are just so huge, that they are an ideal size for big box to operate in. Generally speaking I don't consider skyscraper cities to be the ideal for TND. Though NYC is so vast, some areas may be more ideal than others.
NYC has no Walmart, partly due to political pressure. There is a Target, as BajanYankee showed. NYC is a good location for big box stores mainly because it's dense and centralized and so enormous numbers of people pass through the same spots, following more the model of old big city department stores rather than their suburban origins. Manhattan big box stores are often larger than their suburban counterparts with better selection than the suburban store. This article claimed Manhattan was better for big box stores than suburbia:
Experts say that big-boxes are nevertheless likely to fare better in Manhattan, thanks to tourism and the fact that people walking by are more likely to go in and buy goods on impulse.
Note the number of people on the street; easy to support a large store. None of them are in skyscrapers just mid rise buildings. All of these big box stores are tiny compared to Macy's, which is gigantic.
Much more interesting is a big box store in Boston:
Someone mentioned a while back in another thread something about not being able to design cities the way we did 100 years ago because "everything would be big box stores charging high rents that only chain stores can afford." I want to explore this a bit more. Are real estate developers bigger, more powerful, and richer today than they were in 1900? And if so, how does that affect cities in other ways?
I don't see why real estate developers would be less powerful back in the day. If anything the grand commercial buildings were a statement of their power and status.
The difference is that a century ago the biggest corporations were railroads. The influence is still visible. Boston is so small because railroads kept the city from taking over the suburbs they helped build. The older suburbs and some city neighborhoods are along present or past railroads. Many industrial areas were due to propinquity to rail yards. Railroads in many cases owned large tracts of land to develop. Selling it as residential provided coal customers (yes, homes were heated with coal).
NYC has no Walmart, partly due to political pressure. There is a Target, as BajanYankee showed. NYC is a good location for big box stores mainly because it's dense and centralized and so enormous numbers of people pass through the same spots, following more the model of old big city department stores rather than their suburban origins. Manhattan big box stores are often larger than their suburban counterparts with better selection than the suburban store. This article claimed Manhattan was better for big box stores than suburbia:
Experts say that big-boxes are nevertheless likely to fare better in Manhattan, thanks to tourism and the fact that people walking by are more likely to go in and buy goods on impulse.
Nevertheless big box stores aren't doing well in suburbia or in Manhattan. Here are a couple of big box stores in Manhattan:
(the largest Barnes & Noble, right next to their corporate headquarters)
Note the number of people on the street; easy to support a large store. None of them are in skyscrapers just mid rise buildings. All of these big box stores are tiny compared to Macy's, which is gigantic.
Much more interesting is a big box store in Boston:
Art Deco!
I should clarify a little more. Buildings don't have to be skyscrapers to be too large imo. A three story glass box is just as unappealing to me as one that is 50 stories.
The buildings on 17th and 6th streets look pretty nice, if just a bit too tall (and beige) for my taste. I know, I'm a nitpicker. Notice how sunlight doesn't reach street level. Good for cooling off on a hot summer day but when the sun is totally blocked out it makes the street look too dark. The buildings could use some color variation s well. They all come in a similar shade of beige.
I like the bike lanes. But those wide dense streets look like they could use a nice streetcar line or two. To help ease the crowded subways and provide another option for those who don't like going down into the dark dank subways.
I don't see why real estate developers would be less powerful back in the day. If anything the grand commercial buildings were a statement of their power and status.
In terms of design confluences it might be helpful to remember that the turn of the century period we admire as so charming nowadays was also an era of crass new money corporate development. You can find many commonalities to modern day. Human enterprise really hasn't changed that much, really.
As a sidebar to urban landscapes, there are massive rural mansion-lodges built by people like the Rockefellers. These were meant to resemble rustic cabins, to look as though these rich barons were salt of the earth...designed for people who had no interest in getting their hands dirty. To me it's not too much different from McMansions no matter the wealth scale, and on the same side of vulgar.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
