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.
Your right thank you for the link the mall is actually 38.4% vacant with the empty Nordstrom store that took up 26.7% of the mall space being empty for years and has no prospects for future tennats, the rest of the mall being 11.7% equals a 38.4 % vacancie rate the mall is in worst condition since last year. Soon it will be 40% vacant. Last year it was only 35% vacant. To bad the mall has no urban rail like other downtown thriving malls.
What ever is right, I never said anything about whether the mall was doing well or not, so I'm not sure why you brought it up. I just said the mall revitalized downtown Indianapolis, which it did.
What ever is right, I never said anything about whether the mall was doing well or not, so I'm not sure why you brought it up. I just said the mall revitalized downtown Indianapolis, which it did.
Because the thread is about urban malls and how they work not about Indianapolis. I was bringing up the fact Circle Center is not working.
I don't understand how the OP is so horrible for wanting to avoid homeless people.
It's not the fact that the OP wants to avoid homeless people (which is an entirely different discussion), but the fact that they base their dislike of downtown/big cities/urban environment entirely around their fear of homeless people, which I don't think is logical.
Part of the allure of downtowns/big cities/urban environment is the crowds of people from all walks of life. If you want to avoid that, then that's what the subdivisions and strip malls in the suburbs are for.
It's not the fact that the OP wants to avoid homeless people (which is an entirely different discussion), but the fact that they base their dislike of downtown/big cities/urban environment entirely around their fear of homeless people, which I don't think is logical.
Why is everyone so uptight about panhandlers? Is it really so hard to look someone in the eye and say "No." or if you're feeling nice "No, sorry."? It's not like your the first person they've heard it from today.
I do it all the time. It doesn't bother me at all, it doesn't interrupt my conversations, it doesn't make me feel guilty. It's no more disruptive than some idiot tourist asking me for directions, and I tolerate that.
.
Ha. It is not that easy. I am polite and typically say no, sorry. The reaction I get does not match my level of civility. I get cursed out when I say no. Many homeless people choose to call me names. As innocuous as "stupid black b*****" or something very similar up to rants following me down the street and lasting several minutes with a host of expletives. This happens at least 2x a month when I am in downtown San Francisco.
Basically it makes me uncomfortable, unfriendly, and more likely to walk through areas with homeless people very quickly.
I don't know how, but I just can't stand downtown areas because they are swarmed with homeless people panhandling for money and sometimes they do things other than panhandling.
This is more specifically a California/West coast problem, or broadly a US problem, not so much a 'feature' of a downtown area. Most cities in the world do not let homeless people close to the most expensive areas with the greatest economic activity. Speaking more generally, it is a bad idea at least from economic perspective to put the least productive people on the most productive valuable land, and it is mostly exclusively done by local municipal leadership in the US.
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.