Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [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 03-31-2012, 06:08 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
5,861 posts, read 15,177,168 times
Reputation: 6757

Advertisements

[quote=MDAllstar;23651080]"urban" and "mall" is an oxymoron. If your downtown, stores should line the first floor of buildings, they should not be inside a mall. D.C. only has a Macy's downtown as for big box stores. The streets are getting many of the first floor retail the city used to have. When City Center is done, that will add another double digit number of stores. The difference is they will be stores that line the streets and not enclosed in a mall.]


MDAllstar, I honestly think you need to start visiting other cities and downtowns around the country. Please put this on your to do list for 2012.:-)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-31-2012, 06:22 PM
 
Location: In the heights
36,899 posts, read 38,810,969 times
Reputation: 20929
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar View Post
"urban" and "mall" is an oxymoron. If your downtown, stores should line the first floor of buildings, they should not be inside a mall. D.C. only has a Macy's downtown as for big box stores. The streets are getting many of the first floor retail the city used to have. When City Center is done, that will add another double digit number of stores. The difference is they will be stores that line the streets and not enclosed in a mall.
This isn't true both historically or currently. A lot of the most vibrant and urban areas in Europe are the old arcade and galleria style malls from the 19th and early 20th century. In East Asia, the malls are in the center of the city within a walkable neighborhood and often feature hotels/apartments above while the stores are a mix of chains and local entrepreneurs, especially the amazing food courts). What matters more is where the mall is located (in the suburbs where everyone must drive to it? completely cut off from the rest of the city?) and what the mall is comprised of (nothing but chain stores?).

Last edited by OyCrumbler; 03-31-2012 at 06:31 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2012, 09:00 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C.
13,685 posts, read 15,586,016 times
Reputation: 4054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77 View Post
I'm thinking he was referring to enclosed malls in general and he does have a point there; they were designed to be the exact opposite of good urban design. I've never been to Seattle and so I'm not familiar with Pacific Place, but from looking at the pictures, it appears to do the best job possible with the anchor stores having been designed according to classic urban principles. However, it's not ideal from a purely urban standpoint as it still has stores bottled up inside the enclosed structure. But it's probably as good as you're going to get in the current era we live in.
Yes, that is exactly what I meant. Having an enclosed mall area with multiple levels causes vibrancy to be in pockets around the city unless the city possesses extremely high density. Lining every single building in a downtown with retail creates vibrancy everywhere. I guess we also have to take into consideration cities with downtown's that have tiny footprints. There is less room for street level retail if the downtown footprint isn't that big so, I guess if every inch of the downtown is filled with retail, a mall is fine. Unless a city has clothing apparel stores lining every single possibe retail space on the first floor of every single building, then there is no need for a mall. Especially one with a roof. If its a pedestrian mall, that is fine, but I wouldn't consider that a mall.

Last edited by MDAllstar; 03-31-2012 at 09:18 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2012, 09:08 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C.
13,685 posts, read 15,586,016 times
Reputation: 4054
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
This isn't true both historically or currently. A lot of the most vibrant and urban areas in Europe are the old arcade and galleria style malls from the 19th and early 20th century. In East Asia, the malls are in the center of the city within a walkable neighborhood and often feature hotels/apartments above while the stores are a mix of chains and local entrepreneurs, especially the amazing food courts). What matters more is where the mall is located (in the suburbs where everyone must drive to it? completely cut off from the rest of the city?) and what the mall is comprised of (nothing but chain stores?).
The problem in America is our cities have low density compared to European or Asian cities. New York is the only city that can compete with cities over seas. Because of this, our vibrancy in American cities is not even close to the rest of the world. How do we fix street level vibrancy? Fill our cities with street level retail people can only reach by walking on the side walk. That is a win win situation. People on the side walk witness vibrant packed streets and stores get foot traffic from unsuspecting shoppers.

That is why I said malls don't create an urban environment. The people aren't spread thoughout the streets in the city. If we had people crawling our streets like other countries, it wouldn't matter where our retail was because our streets would be packed no matter what. We don't have that luxury in this country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2012, 09:14 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C.
13,685 posts, read 15,586,016 times
Reputation: 4054
[quote=pwright1;23656946]
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar View Post
"urban" and "mall" is an oxymoron. If your downtown, stores should line the first floor of buildings, they should not be inside a mall. D.C. only has a Macy's downtown as for big box stores. The streets are getting many of the first floor retail the city used to have. When City Center is done, that will add another double digit number of stores. The difference is they will be stores that line the streets and not enclosed in a mall.]


MDAllstar, I honestly think you need to start visiting other cities and downtowns around the country. Please put this on your to do list for 2012.:-)
Pwright, I honestly think you need to visit other cities around the world and compare the vibrancy on their streets versus our streets in America. We don't have the luxury to not force people to walk the streets of our cities. We have to create a reason for people to walk our streets because our streets are not bursting at the seems with people where you have to practically step over people like Tokyo etc. Having a mall takes people away from the streets. Consistent vibrancy thoughtout a city is best maintained by filling all the first floors across the city with retail. That's Urban Planning 101.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2012, 07:12 AM
 
7,237 posts, read 12,686,972 times
Reputation: 5657
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarvinStrong313 View Post
Yea 2,000 units and 2,000 buildings is a HUGE difference. 2,000 units is a great addition to downtown Philly but 2,000 BUILDINGS could make downtown Philly the next Manhattan.
lol, not even close...

Chicago is the closest in America you'll get to another Manhattan
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2012, 07:42 AM
 
Location: Earth
2,549 posts, read 3,957,937 times
Reputation: 1218
Quote:
Originally Posted by 313Weather View Post
lol, not even close...

Chicago is the closest in America you'll get to another Manhattan
The 2nd largest mountain is MT Chicago after MT Manhattan

If Chicago's skyscrapers were to go west another 2 miles after downtown and extend north all the way up to Evanston 13-14 miles then it would be about the same size as Manhattan. The length of Manhattan island is around 13 miles in length by 2 miles wide (1.5 miles towards the southern part of the island "downtown").

Chicago to Evanston 14 miles in length by 2 miles wide would equal Manhattan. (if downtown Chicago were to extend that far)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2012, 08:02 AM
 
Location: The City
22,379 posts, read 38,678,927 times
Reputation: 7974
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanologist View Post
The 2nd largest mountain is MT Chicago after MT Manhattan

If Chicago's skyscrapers were to go west another 2 miles after downtown and extend north all the way up to Evanston 13-14 miles then it would be about the same size as Manhattan. The length of Manhattan island is around 13 miles in length by 2 miles wide (1.5 miles towards the southern part of the island "downtown").

Chicago to Evanston 14 miles in length by 2 miles wide would equal Manhattan. (if downtown Chicago were to extend that far)

Sometimes on the approach to Ohare you get some great views of the DT and line of highrises along the water; I always have my eyes peered to window if at all possible; is a fantastic view
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2012, 08:15 AM
 
Location: Earth
2,549 posts, read 3,957,937 times
Reputation: 1218
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
Sometimes on the approach to Ohare you get some great views of the DT and line of highrises along the water; I always have my eyes peered to window if at all possible; is a fantastic view
I always ask for window seat so I can see a city's skyline if on the right side. It's been years since I've flown over Chicago's downtown skyline.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2012, 09:59 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles
5,861 posts, read 15,177,168 times
Reputation: 6757
[quote=MDAllstar;23658968]
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwright1 View Post

Pwright, I honestly think you need to visit other cities around the world and compare the vibrancy on their streets versus our streets in America. We don't have the luxury to not force people to walk the streets of our cities. We have to create a reason for people to walk our streets because our streets are not bursting at the seems with people where you have to practically step over people like Tokyo etc. Having a mall takes people away from the streets. Consistent vibrancy thoughtout a city is best maintained by filling all the first floors across the city with retail. That's Urban Planning 101.
I've traveled to many cities around the world. But this is about downtowns in the U.S. And clearly you haven't been to many of them. Leave DC and your go-go music behind and go explore the USA!:-)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


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 > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top