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.
There are fold-up strollers. I see many every day in Hong Kong. ANd parents happily take them unfolded onto the Mass Transit trains
I have seen mothers on welfare use the bus system. Sorry but if I could afford a small car, I wouldn't do that to my wife/girlfriend. Sure it is possible to take children on public transit but you are now asking the mother in question to push a stroller a few blocks while carring a diaper bag in all kinds of weather..not good.
Free parking usually paid for by the bulding owner, sometimes by the city, even a transit agency. Often parking lots are built with more spaces than will likely be used. Partly for snow storage. In the case of a mall, to handle the load that only occurs on Black Friday and Christmas Eve. Presumably the cost is passed on to customers, hidden in the overhead. I have to say I have never seen "parking" on a store ticket.
Free parking usually paid for by the bulding owner, sometimes by the city, even a transit agency. Often parking lots are built with more spaces than will likely be used. Partly for snow storage. In the case of a mall, to handle the load that only occurs on Black Friday and Christmas Eve. Presumably the cost is passed on to customers, hidden in the overhead. I have to say I have never seen "parking" on a store ticket.
Nor shopping cart retrieval,which is also hidden in the overhead.
Exactly.
We need more Haight-like walkable communities.
If car owners want to visit, then can park elsewhere and come in by bus, or some other form of transport.
Every city should aim to have a Walkable area which is carfree, or at least car-light. If these prove financially viable, they should be grown to areas which car dependency and excessive parking have ruined.
I'd agree, except for the last part since I'm figuring "ruined" means does not comport to your anti-car dogma but completely functional and enjoyed by the people who do live there. I enjoy going to the Haight once or twice a year, not that I'd call it carfree nor even car-light, just car inconvenient.
Just through post #30 here, doing a lot of multi-quoting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geologic
They thought that when they built the Malls in the outer ring suburbs. The land was cheap, and they could build big malls surrounded by seas of free parking lots. But now many of those suburban malls are struggling, and some have gone bust. What went wrong with that model?
Okay. You are right. "Build it and they will come," rarely worked when it came to Downtown malls.
(They missed an important fact, which is obvious to anyone who has lived in a truly walkable city like London or Hong Kong, or even NYC or Chicago.)
Key question: How do you get the customers to the mall, if you are not enticing them with "free" parking?
Answer (which has worked so well in LON and HK): You build the mall next to, or on top of the transit station, along with plenty of mixed use development, including residential apartments and homes. Then you have two now customer groups to replace those who may not find so much parking:
+ The people who live within walking distance of the station and the mall, and
+ The people who live near other stations, and will take the transit to go shopping, leaving their cars at home, and
+ Whatver parking you do have should be out of the way (of the "favored" pedestrians) in multi-story parking lots, which do not interfere with pedestrian access to transit.
In short: "CARS ARE LAST" - which is a slogan of the Walkable neighborhoods movement
Get this right, and both the transit line and the mall will thrive. But so many American cities seem to miss out on this important concept.
B#1: Post a link to all these "failed malls".
B#2: The US is not the UK or Hong Kong. The transit system couldn't sustain what you are proposing. People don't use transit as much in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph
So there aren't any walkable main streets that suffered after a walmart or other big box set up shop on the outskirts and surrounded itself with parking?
I think the reasons for struggling malls are largely due to too much retail and decreased retail spending.
Btw KeepRightPassLeft, do you really think many people would find a grocery store 2 blocks away undesirable or did you just mean some people don't care much if it's 2 blocks or 20.
Probably not as many as you hear about via the internet. When Walmart first started, they mainly located stores in rural areas and small towns. Such places had often either never had a downtown of more than a few stores, or said downtown had long folded. That was the case in Lafayette, CO when Walmart located there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIKEETC
No.
[let the free market decide]
Agreed!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geologic
Do you listen to the Strong Towns podcasts?
Maybe you should. Chuck Marohn talks about that.
He says that many cities have erred by giving Walmart huge tax incentives to set up on the outskirts of their cities. That is often a net zero sum game, or even a Net Negative return, since the city must then build and maintain infrastructure to service the new Walmarts. Meantime, the new store cannabalises the existing shopping outlets, often in the downtown areas.
Marohm recommends a different policy: Doing cheaper things that enrich the downtown area, and which make it a better place to live and shop.
Mabye Chuck could provide some documentation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geologic
Well, if you really think that, then lets move to a free market.
Without all the subsidies for Cars, highways, and parking.
I think you must be one of those "free marketeers" who wants free markets only so long as the rules are written in your favor.
Even many years of severe deterioration of the relative economic standing of the US will not get the stubborn to see that something's wrong, the system is not working as it should.
Don't you think it is time to try to understand what is wrong?
Oh, I'd be fine w/o subsidies. That includes all the subsidies cities get. Subsidies for transit, public housing projects, you name it. Sure, let's level the playing fields. (Please note this is "tongue in cheek". I am in favor of helping the poor.)
The horse and buggy are still around, but not used as widely as they once were.
I for one, seek a carfree future, or at least a car-light future, where cars and parking do not dominate the US landscape the way they do now.
People are always (one of the few times you can use that word) going to want personal transportation. You are never going to put that genie back in the bottle.
You know all the highways you drive on are also substantially subsidized by the fed, right? Or, you do know that, but think that it is morally right to subsidize them but morally wrong to subsidize transit.
The HBLR is pretty much seen as a success, too (unlike the Riverline on the other side of the state).
Please, let us not get into a morality play again here.
Just through post #30 here, doing a lot of multi-quoting.
B#1: Post a link to all these "failed malls".
B#2: The US is not the UK or Hong Kong. The transit system couldn't sustain what you are proposing. People don't use transit as much in the US.
Probably not as many as you hear about via the internet. When Walmart first started, they mainly located stores in rural areas and small towns. Such places had often either never had a downtown of more than a few stores, or said downtown had long folded. That was the case in Lafayette, CO when Walmart located there.
Agreed!
Mabye Chuck could provide some documentation.
Oh, I'd be fine w/o subsidies. That includes all the subsidies cities get. Subsidies for transit, public housing projects, you name it. Sure, let's level the playing fields. (Please note this is "tongue in cheek". I am in favor of helping the poor.)
Curious about the level of subsidy for the Louisville housing projects.
Please, let us not get into a morality play again here.
I didn't bring it up. Use a different word if you wish, but the poster I responded to blathered on about America, forefathers, individualism, etc., as a reason why highways should be subsidized more. I thought it smacked of moralism, the poster said otherwise, and there it remained until now.
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.
