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.
What are you talking about? When did I say churches didn't belong downtown or didn't fit into the urban fabric? Why are you posting pictures of churches like someone said they didn't fit into the urban fabric or didn't belong downtown?
Who said anything about it being apparel retail? I'm talking about retail period. That includes restaurants, clothing stores, grocery stores, furniture stores, banks, art galleries, etc. etc. etc. The point is, they need to be street facing to activate the streets through the downtown grid. An outdoor pedestrian mall closed off to vehicular traffic is fine and does the same thing too. I'm only talking about enclosed malls which take pedestrians away from the street.
That is the difference between the way a planner thinks and a regular citizen thinks. Just because something is doing well doesn't mean it's the best and most intensive use for the parcel. Your view on first floor retail by the way is not shared through the industry.
There is like all endeavors a difference between accademics and function though I am most definately an advocate for maximizing use of street frontage in urban settings.
Urban planners though have a LOOOONG history of pontificating perfection to only create mediocrity; as do the think tanks in any background. There is a significant danger in believe these theorys are absolutes.
Urban planners and renewal from decades past made things worse; most of what I see today is better but not all and a monolithic viewpoint is dangerous IMHO
This is not to say planning is bad nor knowledge of such but to disreagrad others viewpoints in some pontificated sense of supremecay is also to me troubling. There is no one size fits all answer to anything, something I have personally learned the hard way.
There is like all endeavors a difference between accademics and function though I am most definately an advocate for maximizing use of street frontage in urban settings.
Urban planners though have a LOOOONG history of pontificating perfection to only create mediocrity; as do the think tanks in any background. There is a significant danger in believe these theorys are absolutes.
Urban planners and renewal from decades past made things worse; most of what I see today is better but not all and a monolithic viewpoint is dangerous IMHO
This is not to say planning is bad nor knowledge of such but to disreagrad others viewpoints in some pontificated sense of supremecay is also to me troubling. There is no one size fits all answer to anything, something I have personally learned the hard way.
So, you don't believe buildings should be mixed use with retail included on the bottom where possible? That is pretty much all I said and if you do actually agree with the notion of mixed use, then you have been wasting your time typing for a couple pages now in this thread arguing something that we both already agreed on. Who exactly are you disagreeing with?
As for shopping malls, you don't have to take my word for it, they have run their course and the 1950's era push for this suburban dream has sailed. Go read up on it. Developers just aren't building them anymore. The main street is returning which in reality has been popular for thousands of years.
Funny because I always thought that juxtaposition captured a bit of Houston's essence: a 150 year old black Baptist church sharing the same space with the former Enron HQ.
Says urban planners everywhere. Industrial buildings should not be downtown.
Give me a source on this one. And understand that I'm not talking about new industrial buildings, but mostly historic industrial buildings that may still be used for industrial purposes.
Quote:
As for convention centers, they should be urban if they are going to be downtown which many aren't like say Atlanta's so that is already a problem for retail.
Convention centers shouldn't be in retail districts to begin with. If downtown, they should, of course, be pulled up to the street and offer pedestrian access (which GWCC does) but functionally, it cannot have a solid streetwall of retail.
Quote:
They should not have surface parking either. You seem to be missing the point. The goal is too put retail where ever possible. That isn't everywhere, that is where ever possible. The problem has more to do with failed urban planning developments in cities like private sector buildings without first floor retail etc.
I agree with the point about surface parking and having retail wherever possible, but you were implying that it should be uniformly distributed throughout downtowns and that's nearly impossible. Retail does best when clustered, which is why there are certain parts of downtown that do better with retail.
Quote:
Enclosed malls are a thing of the past. The outdoor main street shopping experience is returning. The planners in every city are pushing this. There won't be many enclosed malls anywhere eventually.
I agree that enclosed malls are a relic of the past inasmuch as they really aren't getting built anymore, but the ones that are doing relatively well will be around for a while.
Why can't industrial buildings be downtown? You do realize science and research buildings are considered "industrial." Industry is divided into four groups and one is Quaternary which includes the research of science and technology (this could include medical buildings as well). By that case I could name a ton of buildings in Philadelphia's downtown (Center City or University City) that are science, technology or medical research buildings. As well as other cities.
If you said factories do not belong downtown then I would have agreed with you. Maybe manufacturing plants as well... depends what type of manufacturing plants you are talking about though.
Well if you have horrible limitations like that, then yes, you do what you have to do. It's hard enough just to live in a place that gets down to 5 degrees much less enjoy it and shop.
For all the cities the don't have that problem like NYC, DC, San Fran, Philly, Bmore etc. etc., it's better for all stores to line the streets so people don't have the option to go inside an area separated from the street. These cities have a much more urban appeal so they are already made for walking. Chicago seems to do pretty well in first floor retail despite the temperatures.
Chicago has a couple of indoor malls like the Water Tower Place that give an option for shoppers to be indoors when the weather is crappy. I used 5 degrees as an example but cold is cold. When it's below freezing 32 degrees and you're freezing your butt off a lot of people will go inside to get out of the elements if the "option" were available. Cities like Minneapolis, Chicago, Cleveland (Arcade) and Indianapolis have had great success with their downtown indoor retail malls. They contribute plenty of foot traffic inside and out. You seem to confuse the downtown malls with the suburban mall design with no street level retail. That is further from the truth. There are store fronts at street level at the malls. Instead of just a single floor retail at street level you also get more traffic with more floors vertically. You maximize the retail occupancy of each building so you get the best of both worlds at street level and the whole building within with more pedestrian connections.
In Chicago and Indy the retail at street level and indoor malls actually compliment each other with plenty of cross traffic. The more retail space and options of convenience you offer the more people will come.
There is also plenty of street level retail outside Circle Centre and other areas of downtown. It's the best of both worlds inside and out. It's all about having more options.
Chicago has a couple of indoor malls like the Water Tower Place that give an option for shoppers to be indoors when the weather is crappy. I used 5 degrees as an example but cold is cold. When it's below freezing 32 degrees and you're freezing your butt off a lot of people will go inside to get out of the elements if the "option" were available. Cities like Minneapolis, Chicago, Cleveland (Arcade) and Indianapolis have had great success with their downtown indoor retail malls. They contribute plenty of foot traffic inside and out. You seem to confuse the downtown malls with the suburban mall design with no street level retail. That is further from the truth. There are store fronts at street level at the malls. Instead of just a single floor retail at street level you also get more traffic with more floors vertically. You maximize the retail occupancy of each building so you get the best of both worlds at street level and the whole building within with more pedestrian connections.
In Chicago and Indy the retail at street level and indoor malls actually compliment each other with plenty of cross traffic. The more retail space and options of convenience you offer the more people will come.
There is also plenty of street level retail outside Circle Centre and other areas of downtown. It's the best of both worlds inside and out. It's all about having more options.
Honestly, how do you think you would eliminate dead zones downtown without street fronting retail? I assume you have an idea. I already said if all the viable space for retail is filled, then having a mall is fine. My point is when a downtown has not reached it full potential in urban design.
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.
