U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-19-2014, 08:59 AM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,165 posts, read 29,655,359 times
Reputation: 26651

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
It's funny that with all the mixed use talk on this forum, some object to a strip mall b/c it doesn't somehow fit in!
For me it is the form of the strip mall. Not necessarily the contents. With the huge parking lot fronted setbacks, it isn't very inviting. You can make a better strip mall, but people rarely do. Even newer ones tend to have pretty poor pedestrian facilities. I like the lifestyle center trend better. It is a lot more lively at the street level.

 
Old 02-19-2014, 09:08 AM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,857,480 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Do they if the core is healthy?


What if it never had parking lots to begin with? Is that designed to discouraged cars?



How are they difficult to access? The transit system is there for a reason. Back at my parent's home on Long Island I would sometimes go to Long Island because it was rather easy to access, if I was in the boroughs it would be easier. Apparently, in the densest American city, enormous amounts manage to access it?

And wait, if it's congested doesn't that mean lots of people are accessing it?
From living in the city of Chicago, I would say yes many people avoid the core. Downtown Chicago(the loop) is fine if you want see a Broadway style play, do some high end shopping, go to an high end restaurant, go to an fest in Grant Park. Until rather recently like the 2000’s it lacked a grocery store and actually has the lowest population in town despite the tall buildings, great public transportation and walkability. Currently it has more people there than ever before but compared to elsewhere nope. Downtown lacks parking and so the retail is dependent on office workers and tourist more than the people who live in the City of Chicago or it's own residents.

If one gets into his or her car and heads to the burbs, you can find lower prices on goods due to cheaper real estate prices and lower sales taxes. State Street suffered as malls arose in the burbs. Michigan ave. thrived by moving upscale away from the working class.

The malls were closer to the people in the burbs, not far from the people in the city and cheaper. Even within the city itself a place this large could not simply depend on it’s core to provide all the retail, dinning, and shopping and so there were (and are) other streets that are designated for retail. The retail on these streets likewise suffered as the malls became popular in the burbs and could offer both better prices and more selection because they were larger not to mention population drops and demographic changes(poorer people).

The core of downtown depends on the office workers and tourists, not residents.
 
Old 02-19-2014, 09:31 AM
 
417 posts, read 713,149 times
Reputation: 481
Whats wrong with the ability to hit up multiple different places in one row? I think its convenient and so do the patrons, that's why they still build them this way.
 
Old 02-19-2014, 09:56 AM
 
358 posts, read 359,757 times
Reputation: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Or perhaps because you promote smaller stores solely for the sake of densification, this would be one of those Sears catalog stores where you go look at a catalog and order stuff instead of purchasing it and picking it up due to lack of floor space. You might consider a real Sears store that has things instead of the pretend store on display on "Main Street".

You also still must travel the length of Main Street to get to the store.
The Sears store didn't move to accommodate you.
In my local mall, Sears is arranged in a way that is easy to access for pedestrians walking through it. It is a full size Sears that contains all the products that any other Sears sells. I think most mall Sears stores are like this.

Seriously, it's not all about aesthetics. Buildings and streets can be laid out in a way that accommodates pedestrians better, as well as cars.
 
Old 02-19-2014, 10:36 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,509,053 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
I'm not trying at all. It excludes parking lots whenever you use it and it's pretty clear that the only pattern in your fabric is end-to-end buildings.
If we are talking about downtowns, then yes, but you are trying to make it sound like I want everywhere to be Manhattan, and that is just factually wrong.


Quote:
Cars already have to stop for pedestrians - although when pedestrians choose to jay-walk, ignore signal lights, or believe that this is some law of physics rather than a law of man they end up getting injured and being at fault.

The places you describe really aren't open to cars at all. You discourage them with limited "on street" parking that is going to be insufficient in number, metered, and time limited. Your alternative is a garage (only because it fits in with your end-to-end building motif) which is expensive and often inconvenient.
How exactly are parking garages inconvenient? Do you think parking lots are inconvenient too because they are literally the exact same thing, only one is stacking parking lots on top of each other.

As for we already stop for pedestrians, that all depends on the location, areas that are designed for pedestrians first make it easier to do, but for areas that should be built for pedestrians but are not, then things like crossing the street can be a dangerous thing to do without being in a car.


Quote:
When given choices people avoid the city or at least the "core" in particular. That seems to be a common complaint by people in the urban planning forum - except the planners (especially in this forum) keep coming up with costly, dreamy solutions that are not compatible with reality for the majority of the folks they think they will be reeling in with these proposals.

I seem to recall a prior thread in which you were unhappy that a local store had a parking lot because it "disrupted the urban fabric". The lot provides the function of convenience and access for prospective and returning customers - and fundamentally the lot belongs to the owner not to "planners" . These businesses aren't in business for window shoppers - they are in business to sell products to consumers.
I am not sure what local business with a parking lot that I was complaining about that you are referring to. The only thing I can think of is a recent Trader Joes that is no longer going up in North Portland, and if you knew the area, a suburban style grocery store building would have been bad use for that location. That doesn't mean I am against suburban style grocery stores, there is a Fred Meyer north of that location that is two stories and has a suburban style parking lot (though they don't have a sea of parking in front of the building like a Walmart would.)

Also, if people avoid these city cores, then why do they tend to be busy unless they have an issue of only office jobs and no other reason to keep people downtown after work hours. Those cores don't have a problem with parking, those cores have a problem with after work amenities.

In a city, the lot may belong to the owner, but it is within the limits of a city and must obey zoning laws and requirements.


Quote:
The merchant really doesn't care where you came from or how you got there other than perhaps for marketing purposes if you are buying his products. The merchants in your vision have to rely upon public transportation because the area is designed to discourage cars. The population within 1/10 - 1/4 mile radius (potential walkers) isn't going to be sufficient to support the stores.

These high-density, congested, and difficult to access places are often impractical and encourage folks to do their shopping elsewhere as soon as "elsewhere" is available. When the city realizes the high cost and consequences of the high-density planning agendas, the city tries to stop the exit of sales tax dollars by trying to prohibit growth of "elsewhere". Fortunately, cities have a boundary and can't export their city council mandates and "feel good" ordinances outside the boundaries of the city.
If you say the merchant doesn't care how I got there, then why would they care if you used a train or car? Your idea that every merchant needs to have a parking lot in front of it to do business is incorrect. If people are getting to areas via train or bus, then the need for parking is less.

Here is something for you, you drive to Walmart and it is busy so you have to park in the back of a parking lot, walk all the way to the building, and then walk a few laps around the building, then purchase what you picked up and walked all the way through the parking lot to get to your car.

Now take that same parking lot and put a parking garage where your car was parked and several blocks of buildings filled with shops that you want to go to and buy from, you make a walk around this little neighborhood commercial area picking up things that you need and return to your car parked in the parking garage. Both accomplished the same outcome and the same amount of walking, so what is wrong with option 2 for you? Personally I think both options are fine, but I think it is bad to try and place option 1 in the middle of urban cores because that disrupts the established urban fabric. When you place option 2 in the suburbs it is often times creating small urban commercial centers that isn't much different than a shopping mall.

Again, you act like we are talking about only Manhattan areas, which Manhattan is a pain to drive in, I have done it before, but that doesn't mean nobody goes to Manhattan, if that were true it would be easy to drive around in.

San Francisco is the same way, it is hard for you to drive in because it is busy there not because people go elsewhere.

Your post basically reads like a suburbanite that is in fear of their suburban area becoming the next Manhattan all while your suburban area continues to consume more of the rural land that surrounds it becoming a danger to our farmlands that surround our metros.
 
Old 02-19-2014, 10:45 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,509,053 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
From living in the city of Chicago, I would say yes many people avoid the core. Downtown Chicago(the loop) is fine if you want see a Broadway style play, do some high end shopping, go to an high end restaurant, go to an fest in Grant Park. Until rather recently like the 2000ís it lacked a grocery store and actually has the lowest population in town despite the tall buildings, great public transportation and walkability. Currently it has more people there than ever before but compared to elsewhere nope. Downtown lacks parking and so the retail is dependent on office workers and tourist more than the people who live in the City of Chicago or it's own residents.

If one gets into his or her car and heads to the burbs, you can find lower prices on goods due to cheaper real estate prices and lower sales taxes. State Street suffered as malls arose in the burbs. Michigan ave. thrived by moving upscale away from the working class.

The malls were closer to the people in the burbs, not far from the people in the city and cheaper. Even within the city itself a place this large could not simply depend on itís core to provide all the retail, dinning, and shopping and so there were (and are) other streets that are designated for retail. The retail on these streets likewise suffered as the malls became popular in the burbs and could offer both better prices and more selection because they were larger not to mention population drops and demographic changes(poorer people).

The core of downtown depends on the office workers and tourists, not residents.
That is because the Loop is full of office buildings and not apartment buildings. You go to the Near Northside and it is a different story with housing being built throughout and several grocery store options and a very active shopping district.

Chicago, like most American cities, have been trying to increase housing in their financial districts to improve street traffic and pedestrian use after work hours. Manhattan is the same way, the Financial District for a long time was void of housing and it showed after work hours, but no one would consider Manhattan empty just because people didn't live in the financial district, and I wouldn't consider Chicago to be in trouble of losing out to the suburbs because the amount of tourist and people who actually live in Chicago are going to be the ones that keep the city healthy, not the people living out in the suburbs.
 
Old 02-19-2014, 02:40 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,857,480 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
That is because the Loop is full of office buildings and not apartment buildings. You go to the Near Northside and it is a different story with housing being built throughout and several grocery store options and a very active shopping district.

Chicago, like most American cities, have been trying to increase housing in their financial districts to improve street traffic and pedestrian use after work hours. Manhattan is the same way, the Financial District for a long time was void of housing and it showed after work hours, but no one would consider Manhattan empty just because people didn't live in the financial district, and I wouldn't consider Chicago to be in trouble of losing out to the suburbs because the amount of tourist and people who actually live in Chicago are going to be the ones that keep the city healthy, not the people living out in the suburbs.

Ah nope. There are only so many tourists. People that live in most other parts of the town, northwest side, south side, west side do not shop in the near north side. It is too expensive and the lack of parking means that the near north side is limited to people who live in the area only. Which works well because places like the Gold Coast and River North are not exactly working class area full of people with families but there are only so many yuppies and well off older people without Children to go around. It is also the most distant part of town from the burbs.
 
Old 02-19-2014, 02:55 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,509,053 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
Ah nope. There are only so many tourists. People that live in most other parts of the town, northwest side, south side, west side do not shop in the near north side. It is too expensive and the lack of parking means that the near north side is limited to people who live in the area only. Which works well because places like the Gold Coast and River North are not exactly working class area full of people with families but there are only so many yuppies and well off older people without Children to go around. It is also the most distant part of town from the burbs.
The people in the Near North have grocery stores (3 to be exact) that all cater to them, I don't see what is wrong with that if that is the make up of that neighborhood. The Loop is probably always going to be a financial district which works for Chicago, but I would hardly call the neighborhoods surrounding the Loop suburbs. There are plenty of healthy working class urban neighborhoods in Chicago.

Also, if you lived in the other parts of Chicago, why would you want to go to a completely other part of town to do your shopping if you can do it all in your own neighborhood?
 
Old 02-19-2014, 03:04 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,857,480 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post

Also, if you lived in the other parts of Chicago, why would you want to go to a completely other part of town to do your shopping if you can do it all in your own neighborhood?
If what I need or want is not located in my Neighborhood and I want to buy it(in person). Places like Micro-center(a computer shop located in an strip mall on the north side), some pet stores(although I tend to go to the burbs for things like Petco/Pet smart). Now I live near a Target but years ago Target would be in that category or if I happened to be in the area for other reason I might drop by.).

I also drop by if my route for the day happens to take me though or past the area because I have a car places with a parking lot get my shopping, places without don't. those particular strip malls are located near the Kennedy so for me it is easy to go there and buy something.

What I mean is there are only so many affluent people without kids, you can not fill an city this large with only affluent child less couples who can either afford the parking or have jobs\lifestyles that don't need a car to access.
 
Old 02-19-2014, 04:42 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,070,870 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete. View Post
In my local mall, Sears is arranged in a way that is easy to access for pedestrians walking through it. It is a full size Sears that contains all the products that any other Sears sells. I think most mall Sears stores are like this.

Seriously, it's not all about aesthetics. Buildings and streets can be laid out in a way that accommodates pedestrians better, as well as cars.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6004...Ln27A2L2Aw!2e0

Sacramento could use some improvement. Main entrance has sidewalks, but Sear's drive (down the street) you either hop the rose bushes or walk all the way down. I was staying at a hotel there for something and had to run across to buy a screw driver. I hopped the rose bushes, not a big deal but annoying.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top