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.
I call it laziness when people park as close as possible in a parking lot to minimize walking distance, when people get in their cars and drive down a few hundred yards to go to the next store in the strip mall, when people spend several minutes circling a parking lot looking for the nearest space, creating more traffic and more possible ways to inconvenience pedestrians, when people cut across parking lanes to the next one without checking to see if other cars are coming down that lane.
Whenever I go to a parking lot, I park at least two or three spaces down from the farthest car out, for three reasons.
1. My car is much less likely to be dinged by a shopping cart or someone's car door.
2. It makes finding my car in the parking lot much easier when I come back out.
3. The extra few paces never hurt anyone, walking is good for you, it's why we have legs.
While I do agree with the above pictures of walking lanes through the parking lots with poles to protect pedestrians from cars crossing in their path, that will not happen everywhere, not even close. I can see it happening at some of the more well to do malls or strip malls, but most common chain strip malls will not adopt this technique. I'm sure vehicle to pedestrian accidents are common in a parking lot, but that's why we as pedestrians have to be alert! Don't be focused on your cellphone, tablet, or whatever while you're walking through a crowded parking lot with cars backing up, cars trying to take the nearest spaces, cars cutting across parking lanes, etc. Be vigilant, always.
Agreed.
Personally, I'm usually the guy who parks here.....
....and then just walks to both stores, so long as I don't have a lot of stuff. There's always exceptions, when it's pouring out, when it feels sub-zero cold or scorching hot, when my girlfriend/mom don't feel like walking from Guam or when I'm just plain lazy on that particular day lol. People have nasty habits of scuffing and hitting cars in big parking lots like these, so I try and keep my car in good shape by minimizing the amount of time I park close. Alternatively, in the park and ride I use for work, I'll park in the closest spot available, as everyone does...which is pretty far back by the time I get there. I trust people more so in a lot like that, since once people are parked, they're generally only getting back in their cars eight hours later, as opposed to say Target where it's a new car every few minutes.
I call it laziness when people park as close as possible in a parking lot to minimize walking distance, when people get in their cars and drive down a few hundred yards to go to the next store in the strip mall, when people spend several minutes circling a parking lot looking for the nearest space, creating more traffic and more possible ways to inconvenience pedestrians, when people cut across parking lanes to the next one without checking to see if other cars are coming down that lane.
Calling it lazy does nothing to solve the problem of people not walking. If you want to actually do something about it, you need to ask why people aren't walking. People aren't naturally hypervigilant, and they tend to avoid places and situations that require it. And they tend to avoid locations that are uncomfortable to be at, such as a hot expanse of asphalt.
I'd say this is getting OT, talking about parking and streets so extensively in a thread about dying malls, but this is the core of the problem: we're sticking to models that no longer, if they ever did, make sense. These are models about how people will act in a given context. The malls that are dying are doing so because they're out of sync with what people want and how people actually act, and they have neither the prestige nor critical mass of value-adding shops to pull people in.
Calling it lazy does nothing to solve the problem of people not walking. If you want to actually do something about it, you need to ask why people aren't walking. People aren't naturally hypervigilant, and they tend to avoid places and situations that require it. And they tend to avoid locations that are uncomfortable to be at, such as a hot expanse of asphalt.
I'd say this is getting OT, talking about parking and streets so extensively in a thread about dying malls, but this is the core of the problem: we're sticking to models that no longer, if they ever did, make sense. These are models about how people will act in a given context. The malls that are dying are doing so because they're out of sync with what people want and how people actually act, and they have neither the prestige nor critical mass of value-adding shops to pull people in.
I'm not trying to solve the problem, I'm merely diagnosing the issue as I see it. Walking a few hundred paces to a store from your car in a parking lot is not something that is overly strenuous, it's literally walking and looking out for cars. It doesn't get much easier than this, you drive, you park, you walk. Things have never been so easy in human history for us to get from place to place and shop, yet people still find an excuse to complain or be lazy.
I'm not trying to solve the problem, I'm merely diagnosing the issue as I see it. Walking a few hundred paces to a store from your car in a parking lot is not something that is overly strenuous, it's literally walking and looking out for cars. It doesn't get much easier than this, you drive, you park, you walk. Things have never been so easy in human history for us to get from place to place and shop, yet people still find an excuse to complain or be lazy.
Instead of asking why people walk so little, it seems that you're stopping at the first convenient answer: people are lazy and whiny. That kind of thinking comes up in a lot of topics on CD. Why are poor people poor? They're too lazy to work more, get a better education, or find a better job. Why are kids spending so much time in front of the TV? They're too lazy to get outside and play. Why don't kids do better in school? Lazy.
It's insulting to the species to simplify ourselves and our experiences down to a yes/no matter of willpower. And it flies in the face of decades of research of behavioral psychology, biology and economics, all of which say everything has a cost and that life is a reaction to those costs.
And that's the point I'm drilling down to, and that I referred to in that same post you responded to, that mall managers and developers, for the most part, don't understand, and that is killing the malls at the core of this thread. You can't treat people like simple machines that only take a handful of factors in to account.
If these malls are to survive, as I said before, they need to take people in to account: they way they actually act and the preferences they actually hold. Malls can't be boxes full of shops surrounded by oceans of pavement and just expect that people will show up. Amazon is a lot more convenient. Malls need to create a sense of place that has people showing up and sticking around for more than ticking an item off a to-do list. And they need to try new ideas. Adding movie theaters was once experimental, but it's now just a matter of course because it's proven so successful. Now they need to try something else.
Oh, heck yeah. I'm not going to park even in the middle of the shopping center if I'm going to PetsMart at one end and the grocery store at the other. Lugging 40 pounds of cat litter and 18 pounds of cat food across the parking lot of rather dangerous -- especially for my shoulders!
My thoughts EXACTLY. Plus, Petsmart doesn't take kindly to their carts being returned in the non-Petsmart allocated cart bays (they actually have signs up about it at my local Petsmart!).
I was thinking about this the other day as I considered the newer non-mall shopping developments and it occurred to me that of all of these I've been to (which includes various in Southern California and Middle Tennessee) not one of them has an what we I think of as an anchor store (Macy's, Dillards, etc). The stores are all smaller, though there might be a Marshall's or Kohl's in an adjoining complex. Is this generally the case?
Instead of asking why people walk so little, it seems that you're stopping at the first convenient answer: people are lazy and whiny. That kind of thinking comes up in a lot of topics on CD. Why are poor people poor? They're too lazy to work more, get a better education, or find a better job. Why are kids spending so much time in front of the TV? They're too lazy to get outside and play. Why don't kids do better in school? Lazy.
It's insulting to the species to simplify ourselves and our experiences down to a yes/no matter of willpower. And it flies in the face of decades of research of behavioral psychology, biology and economics, all of which say everything has a cost and that life is a reaction to those costs.
And that's the point I'm drilling down to, and that I referred to in that same post you responded to, that mall managers and developers, for the most part, don't understand, and that is killing the malls at the core of this thread. You can't treat people like simple machines that only take a handful of factors in to account.
If these malls are to survive, as I said before, they need to take people in to account: they way they actually act and the preferences they actually hold. Malls can't be boxes full of shops surrounded by oceans of pavement and just expect that people will show up. Amazon is a lot more convenient. Malls need to create a sense of place that has people showing up and sticking around for more than ticking an item off a to-do list. And they need to try new ideas. Adding movie theaters was once experimental, but it's now just a matter of course because it's proven so successful. Now they need to try something else.
Very well written, yet fact is you're making excuses for people. Something as simple and easy as walking from your car to a store has to somehow be made easier than it already is. I'm all about safety, and adding those pedestrians paths is a good idea, but not a requirement in my eyes.
I never said poor people were lazy, or students with poor grades were lazy, those areas encompass a lot more factors than walking to a mall from the parking lot, which is a lot less complicated.
Fact is, malls in struggling areas are struggling, malls in well to do areas are doing just fine. Some malls will evolve to survive as yes the online retail experience is cutting into their sales, but nothing beats going out and seeing the item in person and being able to handle it right before you buy it.
Additionally, almost all the malls I have seen with a movie theatre in them? Those theatres are pretty low class, small screen, and usually poorly managed. Maybe I haven't seen enough.
Many malls are dying because people who are interested in buying the products in the stores located there often have to walk through large crowds of teens that are hanging out in the mall and often causing trouble. Many of these malls have become social hangouts and irresponsible parents will drop their children off there on a Friday or Saturday with no money as a free babysitting service. It is no surprise that there are problems with theft, violence, etc., since many of the teens do not have any money to buy anything. This is a turn off to people who are concerned for their personal safety or do not wish to have their own children exposed to negative behaviors such as swearing, abusive language, sexual innuendos, etc. Some of the more successful malls have resorted to heavy security presence and policies for loitering. It is unfortunate that many young people do not have or have not chosen better options for their free time that promotes positive social development.
I believe the popularity of the detached-style shopping centers are related to them having fewer crowds hanging out with no intention of buying anything.
I was thinking about this the other day as I considered the newer non-mall shopping developments and it occurred to me that of all of these I've been to (which includes various in Southern California and Middle Tennessee) not one of them has an what we I think of as an anchor store (Macy's, Dillards, etc). The stores are all smaller, though there might be a Marshall's or Kohl's in an adjoining complex. Is this generally the case?
Not out our way here in metro Denver! I know of one that has a Sears (huge store) for an anchor; several others with Macy's and/or Target. There is one such shopping area in Boulder, CO that has a big Home Depot as its anchor, plus a Macy's that was part of the old mall this place replaced.
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.
or when I'm just plain lazy on that particular day lol. People have nasty habits of scuffing and hitting cars in big parking lots like these, so I try and keep my car in good shape by minimizing the amount of time I park close. Alternatively, in the park and ride I use for work, I'll park in the closest spot available, as everyone does...which is pretty far back by the time I get there. I trust people more so in a lot like that, since once people are parked, they're generally only getting back in their cars eight hours later, as opposed to say Target where it's a new car every few minutes.
