New Whole Foods at the Vineyards (Dallas, Austin: prices, shop, park)

[spoiler]

Originally Posted by Chaka

We'll agree to disagree.

I hadn't thought of it before SnappyBob's post, but it makes sense. A company that not only prides itself on its environmental stewardship but bases its entire business on it, should indeed think twice about it. I wouldn't expect Walmart (or just about any other large retailer) to consider it, but WF? yeah, I'd expect them to. Well, I'd hope they would, I wouldn't really expect them to as they're a business like all others...

Unfortunately the community doesn't care about the recharge zone, but I would expect WF to.

Whole Foods Market is a publicly traded corporation. Like any publicly traded corporation, its first obligation is to its shareholders. It cannot make value judgements about locations beyond what location will maximize the greatest return on their investment.

If Whole Foods were to hold a higher standard for the environmental impact of the locations of its stores than does the community it serves, how would Whole Foods (or anyone) benefit, what would that standard be, and where would the "line" be drawn? No development has zero negative impact on the surrounding environment. In order to honor its progressive goals, should Whole Foods only locate its stores on industrial waste brownfields? Over landfills? The community has decided that developing over the aquifer is desirable (I agree that this is obviously a big mistake). Whether or not Whole Foods places its store in an already-planned development will not change that development's environmental impact one iota. Capitalism does not tend to reward empty gestures.

[SnappyBob]

It's fairly obvious that most of the people supplying the money that makes all of this development over our aquifer possible don't care one bit about San Antonio's ecology. I just thought that Whole Foods, by virtue of their company creed that they proudly hold up for all to see, would have taken some other stance other than ' Oh well, it's already there so lets profit from it'. Not building over the aquifer, or participating in projects that do, does not mean that you have to locate your stores over 'industrial waste brownfields' or 'landfills'. I agree, all development has some enviromental impact. You can't plant a garden without disturbing the earth at least a little. But there is such a thing as being responsible stewards of the major eviromental systems that so many people depend on. Our aquifer is a major system in our region that we all depend on. To put it at such risk by over developing it just to make a handfull of people rich is beyond irresponsible. I just thought Whole Foods would be above that. I guess not. Or perhaps the top CEO's have been hoodwinked by the people that that handle new store development by telling them of all the wonderful technology in place to safeguard against harm to the aquifer. The best way to safeguard the aquifer is to limit the density of development over it. Or would have been. Our city leaders, past and present, should be ashamed of what they have allowed to happen. And yet the money rolls in and the band plays on.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by spoiler

If Whole Foods were to hold a higher standard for the environmental impact of the locations of its stores than does the community it serves, how would Whole Foods (or anyone) benefit, what would that standard be, and where would the "line" be drawn?

It serves to support their creed, their entire basis of business (at least that which they promote). For any business to be environmentally responsible, they will have to take risks, and in some cases make hard decisions like choosing not to open a store in an environmentally destructive location.

Originally Posted by spoiler

No development has zero negative impact on the surrounding environment. In order to honor its progressive goals, should Whole Foods only locate its stores on industrial waste brownfields? Over landfills? The community has decided that developing over the aquifer is desirable (I agree that this is obviously a big mistake). Whether or not Whole Foods places its store in an already-planned development will not change that development's environmental impact one iota. Capitalism does not tend to reward empty gestures.

It doesn't matter if someone else chooses to do it, just because they do, does not make it ok.

And no, they need not build over landfills. There are existing developments in other parts of town that are less environmentally damaging.

Note, I would *like* them to have this high standard, but I do understand that in the end, they're a for profit business first and environmental steward second. That's fine, as long as they make that clear.

[prim8]

Originally Posted by SnappyBob

It's fairly obvious that most of the people supplying the money that makes all of this development over our aquifer possible don't care one bit about San Antonio's ecology. I just thought that Whole Foods, by virtue of their company creed that they proudly hold up for all to see, would have taken some other stance other than ' Oh well, it's already there so lets profit from it'. Not building over the aquifer, or participating in projects that do, does not mean that you have to locate your stores over 'industrial waste brownfields' or 'landfills'. I agree, all development has some enviromental impact. You can't plant a garden without disturbing the earth at least a little. But there is such a thing as being responsible stewards of the major eviromental systems that so many people depend on. Our aquifer is a major system in our region that we all depend on. To put it at such risk by over developing it just to make a handfull of people rich is beyond irresponsible. I just thought Whole Foods would be above that. I guess not. Or perhaps the top CEO's have been hoodwinked by the people that that handle new store development by telling them of all the wonderful technology in place to safeguard against harm to the aquifer. The best way to safeguard the aquifer is to limit the density of development over it. Or would have been. Our city leaders, past and present, should be ashamed of what they have allowed to happen. And yet the money rolls in and the band plays on.

I thought the recharge zone was rather large. Are we not supposed to build anything over any of that land? It seems like a rather large swath of land to say we can't build anything on it.

[Backliteyes]

Originally Posted by Chaka

We'll agree to disagree.

I hadn't thought of it before SnappyBob's post, but it makes sense. A company that not only prides itself on its environmental stewardship but bases its entire business on it, should indeed think twice about it. I wouldn't expect Walmart (or just about any other large retailer) to consider it, but WF? yeah, I'd expect them to. Well, I'd hope they would, I wouldn't really expect them to as they're a business like all others...

Unfortunately the community doesn't care about the recharge zone, but I would expect WF to.

Since I believe the main purpose of a business is to make a profit, I expect less from businesses then I do from the communities that support them (or don't).

But I see where you're coming from. If WF is claiming that it's just as much it's purpose to take on environmental woes as much as make a profit, then they should care just as much about their impact as their bottom line. But that's up to their management and shareholders (if they're publicly owned, I dunno).

Maybe I'm jaded, but I always think that any concern outside of running the business and increasing profits is just a marketing facade companies put on to attract whatever type of customer. Maybe that's because I've heard some marketing strategy sessions and all you is how they're going to convince the customer (that actually cares about this stuff) that they're on board so that they'll get them to shop there. They don't actually sit around and worry about whether the aquifer is recharging properly or if the spotted owls are finding places to build nests or whatever the issue is.

So when it comes down to it I don't expect any company to ACTUALLY live up to their marketing - because that would mean they actually care rather than just pretending to care to get people to pay for $2 tomatoes.

[SnappyBob]

Originally Posted by prim8

I thought the recharge zone was rather large. Are we not supposed to build anything over any of that land? It seems like a rather large swath of land to say we can't build anything on it.

Building over that land should be severely limited to low density, low impact development. Huge shopping centers, hign density or even medium density housing developments that replace natural landscape with large expanses of asphalt covered in automobile residue such as dripping lubricants, glycol and rubber should never have been allowed much less encouraged and sought after. Yes, the recharge zone is quite a large area of land but not so big if compared to the size of the aquifer that it needs to fill. Our aquifer is one of the best in the world. It should be protected not exploited for how much cash it can produce in real estate. To do so is fool hardy.

[Bo]

Originally Posted by SnappyBob

Building over that land should be severely limited to low density, low impact development. Huge shopping centers, hign density or even medium density housing developments that replace natural landscape with large expanses of asphalt covered in automobile residue such as dripping lubricants, glycol and rubber should never have been allowed much less encouraged and sought after.

Have you been up there lately? IMO that train left the station when the TPC Resort (successor to the much-maligned PGA Village) was approved. The development in the heart of that area since that project was approved is extremely dense and includes everything you mentioned. Head up north to 281 and TPC Parkway sometime and see what I mean.

This WF store site is less than a mile from the southern edge of the recharge zone, a long way from the heart of the TPC development. There's a bunch of drainage infrastructure around its parking lot. I wouldn't be surprised if that lot's stormwater is routed somewhere else.

If you don't want any development over the recharge zone, I'll grant you that one location is as bad as the other. But I also note that Nelson Wolff didn't seem to have a problem with building his similarly-themed Green Fields store in the heart of Stone Oak - even deeper into the recharge zone than this will be.

[SnappyBob]

Originally Posted by Bo

Have you been up there lately? IMO that train left the station when the TPC Resort (successor to the much-maligned PGA Village) was approved. The development in the heart of that area since that project was approved is extremely dense and includes everything you mentioned. Head up north to 281 and TPC Parkway sometime and see what I mean.

This WF store site is less than a mile from the southern edge of the recharge zone, a long way from the heart of the TPC development. There's a bunch of drainage infrastructure around its parking lot. I wouldn't be surprised if that lot's stormwater is routed somewhere else.

If you don't want any development over the recharge zone, I'll grant you that one location is as bad as the other. But I also note that Nelson Wolff didn't seem to have a problem with building his similarly-themed Green Fields store in the heart of Stone Oak - even deeper into the recharge zone than this will be.

Your right. This has been going on for a long, long time. I guess there is not much sense in worrying about it. Perhaps I should just buy the rest of it and put an oil refinery there or the biggest cattle and pig feedlot in the U. S. Who cares anyway? As long as we are making money.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by SnappyBob

Your right. This has been going on for a long, long time. I guess there is not much sense in worrying about it. Perhaps I should just buy the rest of it and put an oil refinery there or the biggest cattle and pig feedlot in the U. S. Who cares anyway? As long as we are making money.

CD won't let me rep you!!!

[TexasGuy22]

Anyone know a more precise date the Whole Foods at 1604/Blanco will open? All I know so far is just Fall 2012