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.
Just like CAR LOVERS don't care what the freeways and parking lots destroy as long as it makes it easier for them to get to their neighborhood Applebee's.
See how this CAR HATERS/CAR LOVERS garbage is anti-productive and does nothing to create any dialog?
Think you shot yourself in the foot on that example. If freeways are helping people get to where they want to go even in their own neighborhood then what complaint could you possibly have.
At any rate, the cited article points to "over-retailing" as a primary cause of the downfall of the shopping centers that are in trouble.
As another poster noted, urbanists fail to address problems and seem to believe that building condos and planting trees solves their perceived problems. (http://www.city-data.com/forum/37883800-post84.html) Urbanist promoters in this forum routinely push for "mixed use" development (always ignoring the legal entanglements of course) utilizing "small stores" for "pedestrian friendly" retail. This isn't a solution. If anything it promotes over-retailing as a matter of policy. Last time I looked the cities were more than happy to promote the malls that are the subject of the OP's latest obsession.
"As another poster noted, urbanists fail to address problems and seem to believe that building condos and planting trees solves their perceived problems. (http://www.city-data.com/forum/37883800-post84.html)"
No urbanists I know of speaks in such simplistic terms. The dynamic of what makes a place urban is highly complex and involve an interplay of various human needs and desires. There is no uniform solution.
But that doesn't mean there are no rules for what works and what does not. We've had over 2000 years of cities to show us many example for how and what makes successful and great cities. Urbanist learn from those examples.
"Urbanist promoters in this forum routinely push for "mixed use" development (always ignoring the legal entanglements of course) utilizing "small stores" for "pedestrian friendly" retail."
I'm certainly a proponent of mixed use development. But you'd be hard pressed to find me being ignorant of the legal entanglements - actually quite the opposite. I'm frequently extremely critical of land-use regulations based on suburban ideals that prohibit mixed-use even in our urban environments.
"This isn't a solution. If anything it promotes over-retailing as a matter of policy."
Does no such thing - promotes development patterns, has nothing to do with programming, which over time will respond to market forces.
"Last time I looked the cities were more than happy to promote the malls that are the subject of the OP's latest obsession."
Indeed - a terribly misguided policy of the malaise era - a time that has thankfully slipped into the dustbin of history.
Depends. A large shopping mall property could probably house over 10,000 people in high-rise condos, so quite a bit more than a few hundred. Maybe even 20-30k people for very large malls (obviously not all places are going to have the economics for this). Combine that with good transit to bring in customers not within walking distance, and a parking garage and it can work quite well.
There's also smaller ones like this one https://www.google.ca/maps/@47.52228...HNHXgn0Kpg!2e0
And yes, Budapest also has "farmers markets", although unlike most American ones, they're open every day, year-round, and usually sell a lot more than just produce.
That's the norm in a lot of countries.
BTW pretty much all of the US "urban mall developments" that I'm aware of have plenty of parking, it's just often hidden from sight underground or surrounded by "liner buildings". Admittedly, this only makes sense in places where land is valuable enough that the extra cost of structured parking can be recouped by redeveloping some of the surface parking lots for more shopping, offices, condos or apartments.
For example, there's a rather high end mall in Toronto that's right next to a subway station that was sold for $500 million for a property of just 22 acres and 440,000 sf of retail. I think it's safe to say they wouldn't have paid that much if they weren't planning on redeveloping the parking lots.
Places that have problems with abandoned malls usually don't have high enough land values for this, so often the malls that get redeveloped were either in good shape, or only run-down because their owners were planning to have them redeveloped in the near future and didn't see a reason to keep them up.
Think you shot yourself in the foot on that example. If freeways are helping people get to where they want to go even in their own neighborhood then what complaint could you possibly have.
At any rate, the cited article points to "over-retailing" as a primary cause of the downfall of the shopping centers that are in trouble.
As another poster noted, urbanists fail to address problems and seem to believe that building condos and planting trees solves their perceived problems. (http://www.city-data.com/forum/37883800-post84.html) Urbanist promoters in this forum routinely push for "mixed use" development (always ignoring the legal entanglements of course) utilizing "small stores" for "pedestrian friendly" retail. This isn't a solution. If anything it promotes over-retailing as a matter of policy. Last time I looked the cities were more than happy to promote the malls that are the subject of the OP's latest obsession.
And what happens when those freeways don't have offramps, this has happened with inner city neighborhoods.
Also pointing out that this CAR HATER/CAR LOVER garbage does nothing. I would imagine you would agree with that, even if you don't want to admit it.
Depends on the urbanists, I personally don't believe that just planting trees and building condos fixes problems. Though I do understand that planting trees helps beautify a street, and building condos does add to the tax base of a city. Both do actually help improve areas, but they are not the only things that can be done.
"As another poster noted, urbanists fail to address problems and seem to believe that building condos and planting trees solves their perceived problems. (http://www.city-data.com/forum/37883800-post84.html)"
No urbanists I know of speaks in such simplistic terms. The dynamic of what makes a place urban is highly complex and involve an interplay of various human needs and desires. There is no uniform solution.
Actually Komeht you speak in simplistic terms. Looked in a mirror lately?
Isn't your proposal for capping I-35 and planting trees to "re-connect" and "heal" Austin, Texas a simplistic solution to a non-existent problem? You promoted it and there isn't anything "highly complex" nor "an interplay of various human needs and desires" at play. Mostly just your desires to spend someone else's money for your aesthetic preferences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht
But that doesn't mean there are no rules for what works and what does not. We've had over 2000 years of cities to show us many example for how and what makes successful and great cities. Urbanist learn from those examples.
"Successful and great" by whose standards and for whose benefit?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht
"Urbanist promoters in this forum routinely push for "mixed use" development (always ignoring the legal entanglements of course) utilizing "small stores" for "pedestrian friendly" retail."
I'm certainly a proponent of mixed use development. But you'd be hard pressed to find me being ignorant of the legal entanglements - actually quite the opposite. I'm frequently extremely critical of land-use regulations based on suburban ideals that prohibit mixed-use even in our urban environments.
This isn't the legal entanglement I referred to. You are referring to structural, placement, and use restrictions. I'm referring to form of ownership, restrictive covenants, and involuntary membership corporations, and perpetual liens that can never be paid off - all of which are never discussed and yet part and parcel of all of your solutions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht
"This isn't a solution. If anything it promotes over-retailing as a matter of policy."
Does no such thing - promotes development patterns, has nothing to do with programming, which over time will respond to market forces.
No you've interfered with market forces by trying to force "small stores". Inevitably you will have high turnover and lots of failure due to over-retailing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht
"Last time I looked the cities were more than happy to promote the malls that are the subject of the OP's latest obsession."
Indeed - a terribly misguided policy of the malaise era - a time that has thankfully slipped into the dustbin of history.
Don't think so. Cities are still quite happy to promote and incentive malls and any other business from which the city can take tax money from.
The dead mall in the Austin area was Highland Mall - one of the oldest malls around town. It was being overtaken by all the negative things associated with city living: decay, crime, and all the things associated with older city housing and retail. Large portions were re-purposed as a campus for the local junior college. The huge parking area made it great for access by students (who drive) as well as patrons of the remaining retail portions of the mall. Highland Mall is Austin's first suburban mall (1971) and downtown never held a candle to it. Try re-purposing one of the crappy downtown buildings into a junior college campus and see what attendance will be when no one can get to it because of the lack or expense of parking and all the congestion downtown.
Despite your slew of giddy thread initiations the last few days, there is no wholesale destruction or elimination of suburbs or freeways. Look around where you live - new subdivisions going up everywhere (well everywhere except downtown). The available land isn't in downtown. The available land is outside of downtown and that's where common sense should tell you new subdivisions will be built. They can't be built fast enough at this time to accommodate the demand regardless of whether they are located in the city or outside city limits.
The problem is that articles like the one from the NYTs are very clearly NOT about turning failed malls into some lunatic version of high density urban neighborhood out among the soybean and rusting manufacturing sites of non-coastal America. The loss of EMPLOYMENT is what dooms these malls. The primary malady of these areas short on JOBS is just too much retail space trying to attract too few discretionary dollars.
In places where this is sufficient wealth to support malls (which as the article is about 80% of malls...) the operators are happy to accept customers however they want to arrive. The fact is even "vertical malls" in places like Chicago's Michigan Ave are largely geared to affluent folks that generally rely on personal vehicles to carry them and their purchases.
Lunatics that see every kind of development challenge as being solved by eliminating access for personal vehicles do one thing -- show their biases against personal vehicles. The extremely high cost per mile of most transit systems makes it exceedingly unlikely that significant expansion is likely -- especially in parts of the country where population densities have fallen it is utterly ridiculous that any funding will be available to create utoptian car free living on the site of shuttered malls.
The illogical of drawing more development away from traditional urban cores in the non-affluent / non-coastal cities highlights the passion of self proclaimed urbanists NOT for sustainable living in more dense but geographically scaled back cities but their myopic desire to snuff out personal vehicle use in all areas. Such single-minded fools would probably side with townhouse builders that scoop up cheap land out near Wal~Mart stores in highway business districts if the developers claimed "folks will walk to the SuperCenters instead of driving" -- never mind that such land use pulls folks out the traditional urban core and increases the value of the currently vacant lots that surround the fringes of big box retailers while driving down the viability of older urban cores.
Simply put the true motives of such dunderheads is NOT the preservation / revitalization of city centers but a hatred for those that want only to choose their own options for getting around.
"Actually Komeht you speak in simplistic terms. Looked in a mirror lately?"
Obviously you aren't hearing me if what you think I have to say is simplistic. That's ok - it's hard to connect with someone who believes in Agenda 21 conspiracies.
"Isn't your proposal for capping I-35 and planting trees to "re-connect" and "heal" Austin, Texas a simplistic solution to a non-existent problem?
Neither simplistic solution nor a non-existent problem.
"You promoted it and there isn't anything "highly complex" nor "an interplay of various human needs and desires" at play."
Oh but there is. City dynamics are incredibly complex - you wouldn't understand that being a denizen and lover of suburbs which are rooted in simplicity.
"Mostly just your desires to spend someone else's money for your aesthetic preferences."
Curious you say that since, really, one of the very best things that could happen to cities is for the State and Federal Government to stop spending money in them.
"This isn't the legal entanglement I referred to. You are referring to structural, placement, and use restrictions."
Those are the impediments - so yes.
"I'm referring to form of ownership, restrictive covenants, and involuntary membership corporations, and perpetual liens that can never be paid off - all of which are never discussed and yet part and parcel of all of your solutions."
Not sure how that's applicable at all - are you saying restrictive covenants and HOAs don't exist in the suburbs? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha - very very funny sparky.
"No you've interfered with market forces by trying to force "small stores". Inevitably you will have high turnover and lots of failure due to over-retailing."
Not trying to force anything, if there's no market, nothing gets built. The zoning is only helpful if there's a market to respond.
"Don't think so. Cities are still quite happy to promote and incentive malls and any other business from which the city can take tax money from."
Not any city worth living in. Austin long left that ugly era behind.
"The dead mall in the Austin area was Highland Mall - one of the oldest malls around town. It was being overtaken by all the negative things associated with city living: decay, crime, and all the things associated with older city housing and retail."
You mean, all the things that YOU associate with city living. Check out downtown Austin sometime - be hard to locate any of the things you're talking about.
"Large portions were re-purposed as a campus for the local junior college."
It was bought by ACC - so yeah, they're building, among other things (dreaded mixed use) a campus there.
"The huge parking area made it great for access by students (who drive) as well as patrons of the remaining retail portions of the mall."
Still exists for now - why are you talking as if its in the past?
"Highland Mall is Austin's first suburban mall (1971) and downtown never held a candle to it."
Uh, walk around the mall now and downtown and get back to me. . .
"Try re-purposing one of the crappy downtown buildings into a junior college campus and see what attendance will be when no one can get to it because of the lack or expense of parking and all the congestion downtown."
You do know that ACC does, in fact, have a major downtown building campus right? right? I mean, you do know this? Like - it's blocks from the Capitol. . .ok. . wow.
"Despite your slew giddy thread initiations the last few days, there is no wholesale destruction or elimination of suburbs or freeways."
Not yet!
"Look around where you live - new subdivisions going up everywhere (well everywhere except downtown)."
There are new subdivisions going up everywhere (terrible, I know). You don't build subdivisions in downtown - you build towers and there must be a dozen or more under construction as we speak.
"The available land isn't in downtown."
For single family housing? Of course it isn't.
"The available land is outside of downtown and that's where common sense should tell you new subdivisions will be built."
Never said they won't be.
"They can't be built fast enough at this time to accommodate the demand regardless of whether they are located in the city or outside city limits."
Actually, they do build them fast enough in the suburbs to accommodate demand - that's why housing is so incredibly cheap in Austin's exurbs. Where they can't build them fast enough (due to our overly prescriptive land development code) is in the urban core - that's where housing is incredibly expensive. It's this function of what some economists have referred to as supply and demand.
The problem is that articles like the one from the NYTs are very clearly NOT about turning failed malls into some lunatic version of high density urban neighborhood out among the soybean and rusting manufacturing sites of non-coastal America. The loss of EMPLOYMENT is what dooms these malls. The primary malady of these areas short on JOBS is just too much retail space trying to attract too few discretionary dollars.
Gotta stop you right here Sparky, that's just not factually correct. You might have heard of a little thing called the Texas economy and the hottest of hot spots in the Texas economy is right here in the heart of Texas. And guess what - we have dead malls too.
Gotta stop you right here Sparky, that's just not factually correct. You might have heard of a little thing called the Texas economy and the hottest of hot spots in the Texas economy is right here in the heart of Texas. And guess what - we have dead malls too.
So, can't buy your premise there Sparky.
Apparently you can't even keep your own thread on topic -- it is not I that am selling any false premise, but your baseless ideas. There was no mention of Texas in the whole article.
The city of Portland is planning on capping parts of the 405 through downtown Portland to reclaim valuable land for the city.
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.
Spark, no SPIKE your own foolish ideas...
