# what's the problem with malls???



## harlyson (Apr 22, 2011)

Hello folks

After spending a lot of time reading about US/Canada cities, i realized that many forumers simply hate strip malls. My question is: why? Here in brazil there are lots of them. IMO, They're convenient since you find everything in the same place and they add some visual style to the cities. I thought people might hate malls because of traffic increase around them or due to their "poor" architecure, but i'm not sure if that's the matter. What do you guys think about malls? Are they a good or a bad thing for cities? Discuss.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

I don't have any problems with malls. They are another option for shopping. Costumers should be free to chose whatever place they want to spend their dollars.

This being said, there is something that bothers me a lot: I don't recall every reading somewhere that mall developers wanted councils to pass laws restricting street shopping as to divert crowds to the malls, whereas many urban planners adopt an anti-mall stance advocating "curbing and limiting" shopping malls as to "preserve foot traffic on commercial districts".

I am all for free market in these quest: build stores in malls or streets, let costumers decide, don't force them to shop on the streets by banning malls and don't force them to shop on malls by neglecting OBJECTIVE maintenance of commercial districts. If one of two models kills the other, so be it.


----------



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

^¨Looks like in most world parts malls are winning exept for Europe.


----------



## Mr_Dru (Dec 15, 2008)

The municipals in the Netherlands don't allow to build Malls. Even in the larger Dutch metro areas of 1.5 million inhabitants like Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague don't have huge Malls. If they build Malls, it just kills the historical citycentres. 

Just like the German citycentre of Oberhausen. In the late '90 Oberhausen build the biggest Mall of Europe. Since then all the well-known shoppings-chains left the old citycentre of Oberhausen.

But do I like Malls? Yes they are beautiful, I've been to Malls in Jakarta, Singapore, Durban, Capetown and Oberhausen.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ NEtherlands is full of malls and outlet centers. Including whole "shopping villages" like Batavia Stad or Roermond Outlet.


----------



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

^^We don't have them in Belgium like in The Netherlands, but we have those big shops along mainroads like in the USA...Is that also considered stripp 'mall' development?

We also have groups of big shops with lots of parkings around bigger cities near highway exits...

The shopping mall is quite rare, biggest is Wijnegem shopping and it's small compaired to USA ones...
There is also Maasmechelen village.


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

harlyson said:


> Hello folks
> 
> After spending a lot of time reading about US/Canada cities, i realized that many forumers simply hate strip malls. My question is: why? Here in brazil there are lots of them. IMO, They're convenient since you find everything in the same place and they add some visual style to the cities. I thought people might hate malls because of traffic increase around them or due to their "poor" architecure, but i'm not sure if that's the matter. What do you guys think about malls? Are they a good or a bad thing for cities? Discuss.


A few points:

1. _Strip_ malls and _shopping_ malls are completely different. I believe you are thinking of the latter.

Strip malls









Shopping malls








2. Regarding _strip_ malls. _Terrible_ use of land is mostly the reason we hate them. Usually pedestrian unfriendly; you have to drive there. For sure ugly architecture. _Usually_ chain stores are located here...which makes them boring.
3. Regarding _shopping_ malls. This is what is more common in Brazil, Asia, and elsewhere. In the USA people don't like them because again they are usually pedestrian unfriendly. You HAVE to drive to them except in a few examples. The parking lots are *massive* and a terrible waste of land (NA specific, other countries this is less of a problem). Again chain stores usually dominate malls. Little to no history/character for a neighborhood from either strip or shopping malls.

For me the biggest problem with both of them is the parking lots (I don't drive, I hate driving, I hate parking lots, etc), as well as the boringness of the malls themselves. They add nothing to the historical value of a neighborhood. I'd much rather make a few small trips to locally owned businesses with a storefront than to a single massive place where everything looks the same.


----------



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

^^By that picture, Belgium is full of stripp malls.


----------



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

I'm highly interested how suburban shopping looks in differend countries aorund the world.
I don't know if these are labelled as strip malls but this is how chain stores and outlet stores in Belgium look like. They mostly situated along main roads or close to highway intersections.


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

^^ Those look pretty typical for a North American strip mall.


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

Here's my understanding of this:

1. Strip malls are just a certain configuration for putting a row of shops on a piece of land and are not "bad" by themselves. If one was built in a traditional neighborhood with sidewalks and foot traffic, planners might be irritated with parking going in the front and breaking up the streetscape. The result is the developer simply follows the zoning requirements and places the parking lot in the rear.

2. Malls are private spaces, managed by a single entity whose reason to exist is to make money. Except enjoying a walk in the mall != sales. They are not community gathering spaces or public forums. Maybe in 1980s popular culture teenagers hung out at malls, but today a lot of malls ban teenagers. Forget the past when the family went to see the elementary school christmas pageant held in the mall courtyard too.

If a mall can't attract the exact demographic they need to buy the most crap, they fail and will discriminate against everyone else. And when demographics change, they die and leave a big hulking useless building.

3. *Traditional Malls in the USA are toast. There hasn't been a new enclosed shopping center built here in years, and they haven't been constructed in mass since early 1990s. All that is being built today are a relative handful of open air "lifestyle" centers which don't match in numbers to the thousands of classic 80s malls.*

This has to do with consumer tastes and competition from retailers like Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and Outlet centers. Americans could shop online before people in other countries, and we've gone away from visiting small shops unlike other parts of the world. People like to visit malls but they don't actually enjoy going there to buy stuff they need, and since malls have to make money, this is unworkable. At worst, in the future people will go in a department store and try on clothes or shoes, then pull out their iPhone and order the identical product online from a wholesale internet retailer for much less than the brick and mortar chain could ever charge.

4. Malls also have failed in many places. With a few exceptions they failed as urban renewal projects in downtowns. The fact that they are just businesses owned by a single entity that doesn't care whether they live or die and go through a lifecycle, and can never adjust to demographic change, makes them an albatross for many communities once the sales tax revenue starts to dry up.

5. So basically nowadays, malls have been replaced by outdoor shopping promenades. To be fair, many of these are essientially just the old fashioned kind of malls and from the air they look almost the same sans roof. But even these aren't as common as the malls of the 1980s were. Every town with more than about 50,000 people and was sufficiently large enough in the year 1983 has a classic enclosed mall. But lifestyle centers are restricted to all but the most upscale suburbs now.

6. There is a massive glut of commercial real estate in the USA that may never be fully absorbed so the market doesn't favor tons of new malls being built anyways. There are plenty of older ones which have been continuously renovated. 

...

In conclusion, people no longer need malls to buy things anymore. People may desire public gathering spaces however. Today towns and suburbs looking for an identity and developers who want to start something bigger than they could do by themselves have embraced the redevelopment of main streets and shopping districts.

One cool thing about the more modern infill and town center developments-the legit kind not lifestyle centers- is that their benefits extend beyond the raw sales which happen in the stores, though that is an obvious motivation and source of income. If they are currently trendy then a suburb can sell itself with that image and increase residential property values. A developer can make money off of things like apartments and hotels not just just getting enough 42 year old women buying $300 purses. Cities want to be able to provide nice public things in a more fiscally efficient way. Might be nice to get a developer to build you your parks and have them pay for themselves.

Also I like how such places are by definition public-like I said only real main streets not outdoor malls.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ I don't think malls can "ban teenagers" that way. There are some advantages of Homeowner Association-controlled "gathering areas" or commercial projects: they can built a place that suits the purpose only of the immediate neighbors, exactly as you described (to increase property value), but at the same time they can keep undesirable businesses out, even if they are legal (thrifty stores or rendezvous areas for troubles youths FI).


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

> Americans could shop online before people in other countries, and we've gone away from visiting small shops unlike other parts of the world. *People like to visit malls but they don't actually enjoy going there to buy stuff they need*


This is the point. Malls suck. They're a pain to get to. They're confusing to navigate inside. Most often they're crowded and annoying. Why not just sit at home and buy stuff online?

Most newer malls indeed are in the more "new urbanism" style: open air, multi-use buildings, walkable, pedestrian oriented. Older malls catered more towards the car culture.


----------



## SydneyCity (Nov 14, 2010)

Shopping malls in Australia differ slightly from US ones, in that many (if not most) are close to PT interchanges, and a small but significant number of people arrive by PT (take a look at Parramatta Westfield for a good example of this). 

A possible explanation for this is that mall owners here may have taken into account that many of the teenagers who frequently visit these malls (and spend money there) would have no access to a car.

However, most malls still have large parking lots, and most people still drive to them.

But as for strip malls, they are the same boring, ugly places the world over.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ What is the problem with a strip mall be "boring" if it is mainly a functional place. If you want a "lively" place, go for an entertainment area, not a shopping area.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ What is the problem with a strip mall be "boring" if it is mainly a functional place. If you want a "lively" place, go for an entertainment area, not a shopping area.


Sometimes you come across as someone who spent far too much time playing Sim City. It seems like you want to divide everything up into its own (highway connected) quarter. I would question whether this is actually a form of obsessive compulsion or even mild autism.

Can I ask why you feel the need to pigeon-hole to quite the extent that you do? Do you seriously believe that by separating everything into various quarters that you'll end up with a better city? Didn't America try this with zoning laws and then begin to reject single-use zoning recently as it was seen as a failure?


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ I am not saying that everything should be separate, but that planning laws should not FORCE business to group together to create "livable spaces". Just that. Give the business leeway to set up shop in various districts. If they want so, they will group themselves into mixed areas, if they want, they will cluster on purpose-specific areas - or anything between them.

I don't like the idea of government looking at a prospective business owner (be it a major supermarket, a training center, a multiplex cinema, a private school or a small bistro) as a "manageable community resource" that can be constrained to fulfill certain planning aspiration and then trying to direct the business to install where the government think it is most important to promote "livability", for instance. 

Zoning should be a very passive activity: put the laws with not that many restrictions and let the market work them out. I am in favor of strict segregation only of generally defined purposes like keeping industries well apart from anything else for health reasons, and keeping housing apart from commerce in the same blocks/streets to avoid mixed crowds and preserve tranquility of driveways etc.

However, some planning laws in Europe are absurd. They would go into detail limiting the number of souvenir shops in a given street, or given preference to certain types of business to rent in the area from redevelopment projects, or even forbidding otherwise harmless business like pharmacies to opening up within a certain radius of another one. 

Then, since the 90's you have all sort of planning commissions that have eroded the freedom of entrepreneurship of real estate developers, not only in terms of architectural design (which is the domain of planning commissions, albeit abused) but also in terms of forcing them to collaborate with local business councils to avoid "severe displacement" of business already functioning in the area. This reaches the absurdity of requiring some developers to pay for minor renovations in the adjacent streets of a new project on allegations that a new commercial center, even if of small size, can pose an "unfair competition" for small business who don't have money to revamp their storefronts that are up-to-codes but will now face a more shinny, brand-new, multi-million storefront for world brands.

To sum it up: I am not trying to diving everything on strictly controlled areas, I just don't want planners to interfere much with the market and I'd rather have civil and transportation engineers taking precedence over architects and planners on the design of planning laws and guidances.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Oh, only keeping housing apart from commercial. Only that, huh? 

You're a control freak. Or totalitarian.


----------



## easyweek (Apr 24, 2011)

Mall is necessary for any city in this world, at least for today, and tomorrow should also be.


----------



## aaabbbccc (Mar 8, 2009)

To me Malls are a great place to chill , walk and see all types of people , you see the worst of the worst all the way to the best of the best type of people and everything in between , I also like the different stores to check out , nice place to hang out with friends and of course I love to walk , that is just my personal opinion 
and I can not wait to see the " Morocco Mall " in Casablanca set to open end of 2011
just google Morocco mall it looks amazing !!! check it out


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

I don't like enclosed shopping malls, you have to do a ton of walking and carry whatever you purchase a mile to your car. Strip malls are so much easier and quicker as you can park directly at the store you are going to.
My favorite strip mall that I've ever been to is the primerose shopping center in Springfield, MO.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

*In England* we do have quite a lot of shopping Malls. One thing that we do a number on is inner city malls such as London's Westfield. (Some times called precincts). There are a lot of big malls the most notable of which are Trafford Centre (Manchester), Meadowhall (Sheffield) and Bluewater (London) 

*Trafford Centre*










There aren't many problems with them really. Some says its bad as people mainly drive to them. But thats only been seen as bad recently, but several places in the UK allow you to take the train to a mall. Metro Centre in New Castle and Sheffield's Meadowhall both have train stations.

People say they take shoppers out of city centres...they don't they just give a place for people to shop who live in the suburbs.


----------



## atmada (Jan 9, 2008)

^^ the parking area


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

I hate malls, luckily Stockholm hasnt been ruined by them as some smaller cities in Sweden have been. Department stores is a more sustainable and classy way of shopping if you want everything in the same place.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Dahlis said:


> I hate malls, luckily Stockholm hasnt been ruined by them as some smaller cities in Sweden have been. Department stores is a more sustainable and classy way of shopping if you want everything in the same place.


Most malls are built outside the city limits, so they are not ruining anything within the city limits. If people prefer to go to the mall instead of downtown, it should be of no business of gov't authorities to interfere with this choice.


----------



## Shenkey (Mar 19, 2009)

Usual sized malls in Slovenia, these 3 are located outside of a city with 40k inhabitants.










And the biggest conglometate of malls in Slovenia, located in Ljubljana


----------



## Minato ku (Aug 9, 2005)

There are also many malls that are very urban and well integrated.
I don't have anything against this type of mall.
Usually they tend to favour more the business in surrounding area because the people who shop inside these malls also shop in nearby shops.

Few exemple in Paris area.
Without any clue you almost wouldn't guess that there are a mall inside these pictures.






































PS : Do not believe that Paris is only made of urban mall, the metropolitan area include a lot of suburban mall that can almost be only reach by car or not so efficient bus lines.
In Paris suburbs, shopping is almost exclusively limited to malls.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Inner or outer suburbs?


----------



## Minato ku (Aug 9, 2005)

^^ It depends where we draw the limit between inner suburbs and outer suburbs.
If we take the Petite Couronne as inner suburbs, it includes a lot of very suburban malls (based on car with large parking).
I would say that in inner suburbs malls are more urban than in outer suburbs.

Anyway in Parisian suburbs on average (inner and outer), the majority of shopping is made inside malls.
Paris suburbs it is over 8 million inhabitants. 
Over 10 millions if we add the exurbs where people also do their shopping in malls.


----------



## Sweet Zombie Jesus (Sep 11, 2008)

poshbakerloo said:


> People say they take shoppers out of city centres...they don't they just give a place for people to shop who live in the suburbs.


That already existed before malls... they're called shops.

Ive always found malls to be quite tasteless. The epytome of the plastic manufactured lifestyle we love to loath... _especially_ the Trafford Centre.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Minato ku said:


> ^^ It depends where we draw the limit between inner suburbs and outer suburbs.
> If we take the Petite Couronne as inner suburbs, it includes a lot of very suburban malls (based on car with large parking).
> I would say that in inner suburbs malls are more urban than in outer suburbs.
> 
> ...


Why is shopping done mostly in the mall?


----------



## Minato ku (Aug 9, 2005)

^^ Because outside malls there are almost nothing.
Many suburbs do have some little shopping streets (often village-like) but the shops didn't evolued. 
So they tend to mostly attract old retired people.

Montrouge, the inner suburbs where I live, in the main shopping street outside the restaurants and some supermarkets very few shops are attractive for people under 55 years old.
So most of the inhabitants go to shop either in Central Paris or in malls.

Of course there are also some suburbs with very active shopping centers like Boulogne, Saint Denis or Argenteuil but this is not the norm.
Note that these centers often include a little urban mall.


----------



## OtAkAw (Aug 5, 2004)

In Asia, Southeast Asia in particular, *malls are the thing*! Bangkok, Manila, Singapore and Kuala Lumpur offer the best shopping experiences with their malls.

ION, Singapore









Greenbelt, Manila









Siam Paragon, Bangkok









Pavilion, KL


----------



## harlyson (Apr 22, 2011)

Good, OtAkAw. They're very stylish. 

Malls are good places to meet peaple and spend some time. Some argue that they kill little street shops and induce to car usage, increasing traffic. That fortunately didn't happen in the city where I live in Brazil: little shops keep existing and though malls have huge parking lots, traffic increased because frequency of transit buses grew a lot to serve people going to them!


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

In South East Asia, It's usually Manila, Kuala Lumpur and Jakarta that have American style suburban malls.

Here some in the suburbs of Manila


----------



## Bartje83 (Aug 9, 2008)

In Bangkok there's one big strip of several malls (MBK, Siam Discovery, Siam Paragon) which seem to attract huge crowds that actually enjoy being there. Most malls incorporate entertainment as well, with cinemas, bowling alleys and even a Sea World inside the malls.

I'd love something like that here in the Netherlands


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Bartje83 said:


> In Bangkok there's one big strip of several malls (MBK, Siam Discovery, Siam Paragon) which seem to attract huge crowds that actually enjoy being there. Most malls incorporate entertainment as well, with cinemas, bowling alleys and even a Sea World inside the malls.
> 
> I'd love something like that here in the Netherlands


South East Asian cities seems to have a great variety of huge and fancy shopping malls especially in the city centre. They are more common than shopping streets due to the hot and humid weather there.


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> Most malls are built outside the city limits, so they are not ruining anything within the city limits. If people prefer to go to the mall instead of downtown, it should be of no business of gov't authorities to interfere with this choice.


Instead they are ruining something outside of city limits, I cant see why that would be better. We could either have beutiful nature or a motorway and a mall. Why anywone would choose the latter is beyond me. Space is valuble and we cant just waste it on dumb outdated modernist ideas.


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

Estonia mainly has 2 different types of malls:

1)*Inner-city malls* which are fairly urban and easy to get to for pedestrians via PT. They have parking houses but there's a rather high parking fee. They mostly feature clothing stores. Grocery shops are small and quite expensive.
An example - Viru shopping centre in Tallinn. It even has an underground bus terminal for city lines.









2) *Suburban shopping centres*. These are located on the outskirts of the city with large surface parking lots. They're mostly difficult to get to for pedestrians and away from PT stops. Suburban malls are still controlled by one entity but feature a large variety of companies inside. These have clothing stores too but also large supermarket chains and electronics stores.
An example - Ülemiste shopping centre in Tallinn. It has 2 storeys, lots of clothing stores, a supermarket, several restaurants and cafes(including a McDonald's), some stores selling crap, several electronics stores etc.











Estonia doesn't have strip malls as such. We do have suburban shopping areas with a large variety of...any kind of stores, actually. But these are not physically connected to each other.

One the one hand, I hate shopping centres or malls because they don't create a public space. It's a commercial space with one aim - convincing people to buy stuff. They're controlled by security guards so you can't just sit around there or make photos or just gather with your friends....unless you buy stuff, of course. On the other hand, malls are very convenient in our climate. This winter we had snow for almost 5 months, for example. It's not very comfortable to go outside every time you want to enter a different store when it's cold or raining or snowing.


----------



## doogerz (May 6, 2003)

Indoor malls make more sense here in Edmonton given the harsh winter weather. That said, most new developments here are box store power centers with the hallmark one being South Edmonton Commons, the largest box store development in Canada. 

What's important to me is accessibility by transit. I find box store developments terribly unfriendly to transit users while malls are somewhat more accommodating. The issue lies with the location of these developments which tend to be in the outer edges of the city which offers poor transit access.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Dahlis said:


> Instead they are ruining something outside of city limits, I cant see why that would be better. We could either have beutiful nature or a motorway and a mall. Why anywone would choose the latter is beyond me. Space is valuble and we cant just waste it on dumb outdated modernist ideas.


Because people need to move, shop and so on, and because we are not living in Middle Ages where you needed to farm every inch of are to survive.

I like natural settings, I travel a lot to open areas, but I'd trade any canyon for a hydropower dam, or any forest strip for a motorway if that is needed to assure I have electricity on my house or that I can drive jam-free with my car to visit my family. Without guilt


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ What is the problem with a strip mall be "boring" if it is mainly a functional place. If you want a "lively" place, go for an entertainment area, not a shopping area.


The problem is that if the urban planning would be only remotely better, you could have shopping and "living", entertainment etc at the same place and don't have to separate between them as strictly. Its a matter of quality of life.

That is why even car oriented shopping malls are already far superior to strip malls. Having a quick coffee in a nice surrounding is an easy task in a shopping mall, its already substantially more difficult in a strip mall.


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

Strip malls are very commons in California.


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> Because people need to move, shop and so on, and because we are not living in Middle Ages where you needed to farm every inch of are to survive.
> 
> I like natural settings, I travel a lot to open areas, but I'd trade any canyon for a hydropower dam, or any forest strip for a motorway if that is needed to assure I have electricity on my house or that I can drive jam-free with my car to visit my family. Without guilt


I have not said one word about farming. You say that you would trade any canyon for a hydropower dam if its needed. And needed is just the right word. Malls are not needed, they are leaches they are the opposit of needed. 
If you live in a properly planned area you will be able to walk to the grocery store/market, you will be able to walk to or take the metro a couple of stations to a clothing/electronics/hardware/department etc store. Its about planning.

This also creates jam free roads since you wont use them unless you need to go to the other side of the country.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

-Corey- said:


> Strip malls are very commons in California.


Strip malls are common in every part of North America including the outer boroughs of New York City.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Dahlis said:


> Malls are not needed, they are leaches they are the opposit of needed.
> If you live in a properly planned area you will be able to walk to the grocery store/market, you will be able to walk to or take the metro a couple of stations to a clothing/electronics/hardware/department etc store. Its about planning.
> 
> This also creates jam free roads since you wont use them unless you need to go to the other side of the country.


Your reason has a problem. Ultimately, many moder amenities of Western developed countries are not strictly "needed" in the sense of mere survival. Mankind would not be extinct if there were no nightclubs, stadiums or the like. In regard of housing, theoretically it is a huge waste of space for each household to have its own kitchen and bathroom in a high-rise building...

Expanding your reasoning, holiday leisure travel is not "needed" also, and so the hotel capacity not associated with business trips.

The fact you *could* be able to walk to the next grocery store (probably not a very large one) doesn't mean that we don't need, as costumers (not as mere humans in search of survival), bigger ones, attached with others in malls. The fact you *could* use the subway doesn't make the car "useless".

People should be able to *choose* where do they want to buy, and planners should not promote a "war on malls" because they don't like the final result ("dead downtowns").


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> Your reason has a problem. Ultimately, many moder amenities of Western developed countries are not strictly "needed" in the sense of mere survival. Mankind would not be extinct if there were no nightclubs, stadiums or the like. In regard of housing, theoretically it is a huge waste of space for each household to have its own kitchen and bathroom in a high-rise building...


A logic fallacy. 

Having no mall is not the equivalent of having no big shopping opportunities. On the other side, also mall is not the same as a mall. There are well connected ones and then there are those which are for cars only. The latter are in no way superior to the former and definitely not more modern or more amiable.

Having an own kitchen and bathroom is not a huge waste as there are very good functional reasons for separation while these facilities can be built with relatively little space demands. Having a kitchen and especially a bathroom on your own is a big improvement of quality of life. Being totally car dependent instead of having a large variety of mobility choices however is not an improvement but the opposite.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Slartibartfas said:


> Being totally car dependent instead of having a large variety of mobility choices however is not an improvement but the opposite.


But why do you suppose everyone, or even most people, see "car dependency" as a problem, or an issue at all? I can't contend you if you think that way, and if for YOU being car dependent would be a problem, but costumer wallet behavior has proven most folks in Europe, Australia and North America do own cars and use them without that much restraint.

Your analogy would be like saying that having electricity as the sole source of power is bad, if you could also have baleen or wood you chopped yourself from the nearby woodland as sources also.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> But why do you suppose everyone, or even most people, see "car dependency" as a problem, or an issue at all? I can't contend you if you think that way, and if for YOU being car dependent would be a problem, but costumer wallet behavior has proven most folks in Europe, Australia and North America do own cars and use them without that much restraint.


I am for the freedom of choice, you are against it. You are entitled to your opinion of course, luckily you actually are in a minority. Even in the suburbs of Vienna people want to have the choice and decent PT coverage. That does not mean everyone chooses them. 

In the US pretty much all large cities are trying to change something about their common lack of mobility options. It is a fact that the fundamentalist car only enthusiasm is looking increasingly anachronistic. 

On the country side the car is of course the dominant option. But then, urbanization is a a dominant them of the modern times. And in urban areas PT is an attractive option. 



> Your analogy would be like saying that having electricity as the sole source of power is bad, if you could also have baleen or wood you chopped yourself from the nearby woodland as sources also.


You comparison still does not work. A more proper analogy is that electricity from coal only is a bad choice but that one should have various sources, especially giving the more environmental friendly a prominent place as far as feasible.

Your attempt of trying so hard to label PT as stone age technology is hilarious. It is no bit less modern than individual motorized traffic. Like modern coal power plants are not less modern than wind turbines. It is not about one being less modern than the other but about other aspects.


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> Your reason has a problem. Ultimately, many moder amenities of Western developed countries are not strictly "needed" in the sense of mere survival. Mankind would not be extinct if there were no nightclubs, stadiums or the like. In regard of housing, theoretically it is a huge waste of space for each household to have its own kitchen and bathroom in a high-rise building...
> 
> Expanding your reasoning, holiday leisure travel is not "needed" also, and so the hotel capacity not associated with business trips.
> 
> ...


I speak of needed as in needed for the common good. I want freedom of choice, if you allow large malls outside every town you will sadly lose that freedom. I am not against department stores, I am against malls as in suburbian shopping centres with no town attatched to them. 

The kitchen argument is not valid since having a kitchen in your flat highers your standard whilst having to drive and eventually move outside of town to shop does not.

You assume that im in some way hostile towards cars, im not im hostile towards bad planning and that is what has been going on since the end of ww2. Only now things are starting to change.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

But what if a large group of people, me included, want to have malls and don't bother to drive? Where does MY freedom of choice stand? This argument of yours is recurrent and biased: choice is only limited to the scope of options you consider acceptable, and malls are not among them.

How having malls outside every town will limit the freedom of choice of retailers to choose their location? It will not: rarely any mall has been constructed within a commercial street area so that is closes large blocks within one piece of real estate. But if a mall is built outside any existing built-up environment, it will leave intact the commercial estate stock within towns. Then it is just market forces that will drive costumers to malls, and if they decide to do so, government is in no position to "curb" the "threat" of malls to "old-fashioned" main street retails (starting with the usually extended hours in which malls operate related to street retailers).


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> But what if a large group of people, me included, want to have malls and don't bother to drive? Where does MY freedom of choice stand? This argument of yours is recurrent and biased: choice is only limited to the scope of options you consider acceptable, and malls are not among them.


You have the freedom of choice, but your freedom of choice ends where the freedom of others is affected disproportionally. I don't think those who dream for stuff you do (there are not too many of them anyway) have plenty of possibilities to find what they are looking for. Those who hate what you love have more problems to find places where they actually have a choice of mobility options. 

I don't demand that malls are to be outlawed or anything similar. Your post above makes little sense therefore already. I can't see how car fanatics are discriminated in any way if a mall is not only well connected for car traffic but also to high profile PT and possibly even features an entrance which is attractive for pedestrians or has nice outdoor entrance areas. Just take the Manufactura mall in Lodz. 



> How having malls outside every town will limit the freedom of choice of retailers to choose their location? It will not: rarely any mall has been constructed within a commercial street area so that is closes large blocks within one piece of real estate. But if a mall is built outside any existing built-up environment, it will leave intact the commercial estate stock within towns. Then it is just market forces that will drive costumers to malls, and if they decide to do so, government is in no position to "curb" the "threat" of malls to "old-fashioned" main street retails (starting with the usually extended hours in which malls operate related to street retailers).


Well it is the governments job to make sure the legal framework is designed in a way that urban shopping streets can be attractive places and are not forcefully destroyed by fundamentalist priority to car traffic only. I take the Mariahilferstraße in Vienna for example which has not the slightest problems to compete with suburban shopping malls, even though those suburban malls are well connected to PT as well. 

Your holy cow the market forces can't do wonders however. The design of a city and its infrastructure need decades to fundamentally change if not half a century or longer. If you let the markets destroy all options out of a short term competitive advantage of one option you are heading right into disaster when things should change again. 

Moreover markets don't care at all for the larger picture. It is easy to see that cities built only based on laissez faire capitalism are usually badly designed places vastly inferior to cities where municipal governments make sure there is a solid design supporting the development. Those laissez fair neighborhoods are the first to be deserted again, while others are more flexible and better suited for changing times. In the long term society gets more for less. But these are certainly no concerns any laissez faire capitalist will ever endulge in. Those guys could not care less about what happens in 10 years or 20. As long as possibly inferior stuff gives them good revenue.


----------



## Skyrobot (Apr 18, 2010)

In Singapore, malls are nowadays planned & built over MRT stations. This solves the problem of accessibility, but many visitors still prefer to drive there. I can understand as shopping bags can be thrown into cars as the family continue their 'tour' of the cinemas, coffeeshops, restuarants in the mall unburdened by their earlier purchases. Because of the hot/humid climate, air-conditioned malls are great places to hangout for the whole family. They're just cool places to spend time in tropical Singapore!


----------



## dmarney (Jul 26, 2008)

In the Uk we don't have 'strip malls' in the way that other places such North America do. We have retail parks in the suburbs, similar to strip malls in that they are car-orientated, but different in that they are almost exclusively based on certain things such as furniture and kitchens. For example, you would never see a pharmacy or a hairdressers in a retail park, just the shops that sell things that would be more awkward in an urban environment. So, in that way, retail parks in the Uk have a place. Traditional high streets with smaller shops still have their place here, and are often the centre of the community. Also, in practically every large town centre there is an urban shopping centre. Then you have the enormous regional shopping centres like The Trafford Centre and Bluewater.There are of course the odd exceptions, like newly built towns from the 1960's-70's, where the town centre is just an indoor shopping centre. See places like East Kilbride, Skelmersdale and Telford. All in all the way shops are presented here is quite varied, but i'd prefer less of the faceless shopping centres.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ "Character" is overrated. I could easily go to the UK section of SSC and read countless posts of people complaining that, despite preserving much of their architecture, many high streets in UK are "taken over" by the same "characterless" "global brands".


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

That from a guy who hates non-generic architecture, dense multi-functional neighborhoods, non totally car dependent urbanity ...


----------



## Sweet Zombie Jesus (Sep 11, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ "Character" is overrated. I could easily go to the UK section of SSC and read countless posts of people complaining that, despite preserving much of their architecture, many high streets in UK are "taken over" by the same "characterless" "global brands".


People like diversity and interest. I don't see anything particularly backwards about that?


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

I am not criticizing the retail makeup of any particular shopping district, be it a street or a mall. I couldn't care less if the brands are all local or international. It is something to the market decide and sort out.

What I am saying is that some people in the planning community are overly sensitive to the issue of preserving/creating/fostering a place "character" as if it were more important than anything else (convenience, appealing to costumers, profitable etc). In that sense, their senseless quest to preserve, artificially, the "uniqueness" of a given place is moot as they can force, arbitrarily, developers and real estate owners to adhere to certain historic preservation directives, but they can't, of course (at least in democratic developed countries) force anyone to keep a business open as such if the owner doesn't want.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> I am not criticizing the retail makeup of any particular shopping district, be it a street or a mall. I couldn't care less if the brands are all local or international. It is something to the market decide and sort out.


True, but it can be in the interest of the shopping street as a whole to help smaller more independent or interesting shops to survive - in the interest of the whole street. Thats why cooperation between shops in a shopping street or even a small cooperation and marketing body for the street as a whole can make sense. 

What can be even more important is that dead shops are taken care of in a way that temporary usages are enabled etc. In a mall this is no big deal and I while I don't think shopping streets should have or need that level of strict organisation of a mall, a middle way could be good for them. 

That would be in the interest of the market btw and in various cases already it is already done that way. 


> What I am saying is that some people in the planning community are overly sensitive to the issue of preserving/creating/fostering a place "character" as if it were more important than anything else (convenience, appealing to costumers, profitable etc). In that sense, their senseless quest to preserve, artificially, the "uniqueness" of a given place is moot as they can force, arbitrarily, developers and real estate owners to adhere to certain historic preservation directives, but they can't, of course (at least in democratic developed countries) force anyone to keep a business open as such if the owner doesn't want.


I don't think it is overestimated. While it is just one factor among many, the character of a place is a very important USP. Of course the functionality must be there as well.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ But then, we face another issue: in most cases, malls are centrally owned and micromanaged by their developer/real estate management. All spaces within a mall area, from the parking lot to the service alleys to the food courts, belong to the mall owner and retail spaces are rented at its discretion. The management can, then, determine location of stores as to maximize traffic throughout the complex, disallow certain business, give exclusive concessions for certain types of services within the mall, and also restrict access to panhandlers, beggars, homeless etc. 

In a public street, some options like barring certain people based on their behavior is just not allowed (and rightfully so) as it is a public area. Zoning process and building codes can't ever be as restrictive and detailed as one that the mall owner just impose throughout the property. Then, real estate ownership is usually fragmented, very fragmented, in a commercial street.

In most Western countries, a commercial co-op (or any co-op for that matter) can't compel anyone into associating, creating incentives for holdouts (the street shop owner who refuses to pay for cooperated marketing but reaps all benefits from increased traffic, for instance) that don't exist in malls (you either pay all fees and rent or you are out).


----------



## anak_mm (Apr 8, 2011)

http://www.bukisa.com/articles/216329_5-of-the-biggest-malls-in-the-world

it's like skyscrapers...asia dominates


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> But what if a large group of people, me included, want to have malls and don't bother to drive? Where does MY freedom of choice stand? This argument of yours is recurrent and biased: choice is only limited to the scope of options you consider acceptable, and malls are not among them.


It would be freedom of choice if I didnt have to pay for it. If the malls payed for the motorways they clog up fine. But they dont, somewone else is, the tax payers and im one of them and I dont want to pay for big box suburbia.



Suburbanist said:


> How having malls outside every town will limit the freedom of choice of retailers to choose their location? It will not: rarely any mall has been constructed within a commercial street area so that is closes large blocks within one piece of real estate. But if a mall is built outside any existing built-up environment, it will leave intact the commercial estate stock within towns. Then it is just market forces that will drive costumers to malls, and if they decide to do so, government is in no position to "curb" the "threat" of malls to "old-fashioned" main street retails (starting with the usually extended hours in which malls operate related to street retailers).


Once again i dont want to be a part of subsidising suburban infrastructure. If the retailers pay for it themselves it would be ok, but they never will since that would take away the biggest argument for building in the suburbs.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ That argument is recursive and circular, leading to nowhere. Why should people that only use cars and never travels abroad pay for international airport facilities or subway systems?


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ But then, we face another issue: in most cases, malls are centrally owned and micromanaged by their developer/real estate management. All spaces within a mall area, from the parking lot to the service alleys to the food courts, belong to the mall owner and retail spaces are rented at its discretion. The management can, then, determine location of stores as to maximize traffic throughout the complex, disallow certain business, give exclusive concessions for certain types of services within the mall, and also restrict access to panhandlers, beggars, homeless etc.
> 
> In a public street, some options like barring certain people based on their behavior is just not allowed (and rightfully so) as it is a public area. Zoning process and building codes can't ever be as restrictive and detailed as one that the mall owner just impose throughout the property. Then, real estate ownership is usually fragmented, very fragmented, in a commercial street.


Funny people are not the problem. If someone is truly offending people he might overstep his freedoms and if not you pretty much have to be afraid of people to care. 

I am well aware that ownership in shopping streets is fragmented, which is also an advantage as it enables shopping streets to be more flexible than a big box malls. That said, this does not prevent shopping streets to potentially market itself as such with owners cooperating for the common good. Take this page as an example: http://www.mariahilferstrasse.at/
What shopping streets have less in top down coordination they have more in flexibility. 



> In most Western countries, a commercial co-op (or any co-op for that matter) can't compel anyone into associating, creating incentives for holdouts (the street shop owner who refuses to pay for cooperated marketing but reaps all benefits from increased traffic, for instance) that don't exist in malls (you either pay all fees and rent or you are out).


This is countered by initiatives which are very common for such co-ops. Those which don't take part face loss of potential customers. In sufficiently large shopping streets you have more than one shop for shoes etc. The shoe shop which tries to free ride will loose potential customers to those which do not in various cases. Given that being member in such a co-op does not have to be very expensive, it seems to work very commonly. Even on the very countryside in really small towns you find such things and the work perfectly.


----------



## Martin S (Sep 12, 2002)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ That argument is recursive and circular, leading to nowhere. Why should people that only use cars and never travels abroad pay for international airport facilities or subway systems?


^^And why should people who never use cars be subjected to death or serious injury for simply crossing the road or illness from having to breath in the fumes created by cars?


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Martin S said:


> ^^And why should people who never use cars be subjected to death or serious injury for simply crossing the road or illness from having to breath in the fumes created by cars?


You are proving my point. Unless you live in a feudal society or in a private island with extensive rights, there is just no escape for certain realities. We just deal with them at the best possible way.

If it were up to me, I'd have motorcycles and bicycles completely removed from streets and confined to sport tracks. Can I do that? No, I can't. I'd also rather stop 80% of useless and ridiculous folk events, street markets and other events that interfere with normal patterns of use of a space. But I just cope with that.

Ultimately, people would complain even about contrails on the sky that "spoil the beauty of clear skies as generations have known before WW2", about night lighting that "obscures stars and kills the art of pinpointing constellations" and similar issues.

Within the mall discussion, what I say is that people should not have the prerogative to "curb" mall expansion because it "spoils" pedestrian and customer traffic from downtown. It is the same, parallel discussion of "banning" larger supermarkets because they "kill" neighborhood corner stores by offering unmatchable prices and convenience.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

I think "banning" is used way too often in these discussions. I think most of us live in "liberal democracies" which implies that non-govenmental organizations (businesses, private associations, individuals) have the primary responsibility for determining their environment. Government's role should not be either that of protecting the status quo or of forcing changes that people don't want; it should make it easy to resovle conflicts and help smooth the transition to what people want. 

In any event, the malls won this discussion about 50 years ago, due to their ability to focus large groups of people where large amounts of complementary stores are located. Over the intervening years, traditional shopping streets have formed local cooperative organizations or legally-binding "development zones" that tax local merchants, enforce types and appearances of businesses, etc., in an effort to match this type of appeal. Of course, to some extent, this also occurs naturally as well (smaller clothing stores establish near department stores).

Even in dense cities people recognize the advantages of controlling the shopping environment (SF and NY have large indoor malls in the middle of town; London has the huge Canary Wharf underground mall; Berlin; etc.). At least in the US "city plans" of permissible uses often regulate the specifics of what stores are permissible.

To me the real issue is to make sure that future malls have a sense of ease and openness into the surrounding community and that attractive traditional shopping streets have the tools to keep making themselves attractive.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^ Yes shopping environment is getting "more controlled". I don't think this is necessarily bad. Niches for really independent stuff will always exist, especially in urban areas.


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ That argument is recursive and circular, leading to nowhere. Why should people that only use cars and never travels abroad pay for international airport facilities or subway systems?


You obviously dont understand my point of view at all. Im not opposing cars they have their place and are a good transport solution in some cases. they can however not be a solution for everybody. 

I do not speak about banning certain types of buisnesses, I just want them to be planned properly. You should not build a mall on a field or in the forest outside the city so people need to clog up the roads to get their and therefor block important traffic that really needs to travel longer, you should build it in the city within the classic block structure as a department store. 

I dont want to support wasteful planning.


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

> To me the real issue is to make sure that future malls have a sense of ease and openness into the surrounding community and that attractive traditional shopping streets have the tools to keep making themselves attractive


Yeah

Never been there, but are the buildings in those shopping districts in Japan and Asia basically malls? All that neon for shops which are on multiple levels, and just the density of advertisements and people makes me think that there must be interior spaces too.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

zaphod said:


> Yeah
> 
> Never been there, but are the buildings in those shopping districts in Japan and Asia basically malls? All that neon for shops which are on multiple levels, and just the density of advertisements and people makes me think that there must be interior spaces too.


Japan has a lot of covered shopping streets that could be classed as a "mall". Some of the large multi-story buildings could be classed as a mall too by Western standards - Shibuya 109 for example, though this is more of a department store.


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

of course

The thing being debated is privately owned and controlled buildings or spaces meant for retail or entertainment, where you are in an interior area rather than on the street when walking into a front entrance. A real department store, that actually has departments besides clothing and perfume, with perhaps a cafe, should count in this conversation.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Nothing more depressing to see than a dying or dead mall/big box store. At least old buildings that are abandoned have their architectural merit usually.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Like *South China Mall* in Dongguan. Its supposed to be the world's largest mall when it was completed and it's still 99% vacant up to *today*.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

I think modern shopping centres like the Victoria Square in Belfast are interesting. While they are organized like a mall, they are much better integrated into the city's fabric, have a feel that is very different from traditional shopping malls. I especially like it how the bigger stores have their own street entrances. 










And from above:


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

Slartibartfas said:


> I think modern shopping centres like the Victoria Square in Belfast are interesting. While they are organized like a mall, they are much better integrated into the city's fabric, have a feel that is very different from traditional shopping malls. I especially like it how the bigger stores have their own street entrances.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thats like a galleria, much better planned than a mall. Its basically a street with a roof on.


----------



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

^^ exactly, I like them alot. We have them here to...


----------



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

joshsam said:


> ^^ exactly, I like them alot. We have them here to...



Here is an example of a Belgian Galleria, They are much better than shopping malls.









http://imagene.youropi.com/galeries-saint-lambert-luik-2(p:shop,9624)(c:0).jpg









http://static.skynetblogs.be/media/..._2598211_adeba1625801d700dc11e81a46778685.jpg









http://www.weekendplanner.nl/pics/2010/luik135b.jpg


----------



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

Entrance:










Inside:









http://www.hln.be/static/FOTO/pe/15/15/13/large_405703.jpg









http://imagene.youropi.com/stadsfeestzaal-antwerpen-activiteit-antwerp-1(p:activity,535)(c:0).jpg









http://imagene.best2stay.nl/stadsfeestzaal-antwerpen-5(p:best2stay,hotel,1391)(c:0).jpg


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^ Thats a pretty breathtaking adaption indeed. What was this interior used for before?


----------



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

^^ It was the giant city ball room of Antwerp (1908), but was used for exhibitions during the 60ties-90ties untill it partly burned down an then the city restored it and turned it into gallery/shopping.


----------



## maniei (Sep 22, 2009)

my 2 cents:

first of all I have no intentions to dictate something to any shopper in the world. they are free to shop wherever they want.

I have a very mixed view on malls. I put malls into 3 or 4 categories:
*
1) The city-center mall*
These are malls that are built into already existing pedestrian or shopping zones that already have an old and lively pedestrian and shopping culture.
Mostly they enrich those areas. Often there are great and beautiful city centers, but space is too small and store areas are fewer than you might wish. Malls maximize the greatness of these areas.
Also there are city centers that are too wide, and you dont want to walk all of that. In these cases malls contribute on compactness of an area.
I perceive this kind of malls as rather positive.

Examples of these malls in my area:
*MyZeil, Frankfurt main shopping lane*

















*Luisen-Center, Darmstadt city-center:*








*
Komm, Offenbach city-center*









*
2)The commercial area mall*
These malls resemble exactly what I passionately hate. Malls outside of the city, right next to an autobahn, right next to big hyper-, furniture- and home-improvement-makets.
I find these malls ugly, cultureless, destructive and almost insulting. Everything about them is fake.
I only drive out to these area with the car, when I really have to buy something there, something only available at these big markets. I would never spend my free time there. I would never set a foot into one of these malls volunteerily. I hate them.

Prime-example in my area:
*Loop5, Weiterstadt commercial zone *(Suburb of Darmstadt, and regionally famous for its dumping taxes)

















*3) The district mall*
These are malls in big city, too big for one city-center, big enough for multiple shopping areas.
They are often right inside residential areas, and meant as shopping oppurtunity for people living there. 
I would use them (I do use them) when I want to buy things, and dont want to make a whole journey to the actual city center.
However I would rather not go there for leisure.
All in all I find these malls positive.

In my area:
*Nordwestzentrum, Frankfurt*
This mall is meant for the population of northern Frankfurt, who otherwise had to take a 30 min ride to the center.
Its a very nice mall, but not just a mall, also the public-transportation hub of northern Frankfurt with a subway station and bus-terminal right beneath it. It also has an office highrise, and a great swimming-side.
The cons of this mall are that there is nothing around it besides appartment towers, and so the area is limited with no room for growth (as already said, its only supposed to provide people there with a shopping oppurtunity)

















*4) New district mall*
First and foremost I think of Berlin when I think of these malls.
To make it short: Berlin was rebuilt, and people in charge thought that the best way to rebuild those area and revitalize them would be to build malls there.
The malls are nice and the areas are vivid today, but still I think they suck! Why? Because they too destroy the charactre of Berlin. Berlin was always this unique city, the role-model of the rest of Germany. It lived of its alternative and creative and down-to-earth places (stores and cafes and restaurants etc.)
Now its full of boring pseudo-modern malls that look like in any other city in the world, with chain-stores that exist in almost every German city with a population higher than 50 000. Inside them you can totally forget that you are in Berlin.
You could also name these malls Gentrification-malls.

This is a big *negative* for me!

Example:
Potsdamer-Platz-Arkaden



















*Conclusion*: Well, the score is 2:2 positive to negative. The negatives were very big ones for me, what would mean that I rather dislike malls, but no.
I havent mentioned a big pro of malls, which is that they are barrier-free. So also handicapped people can enjoy shopping and dont have to always worry about not being able to go somewhere. That hated mall of mine in the commercial area outside of the city is so barrier-free, that even people with allergies against perfumes, scents and other chemical substances can go there. Its built of absolutely neutral material.
So I am also neutral torwards malls


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ Though I disagree with your preferences, I understand your evaluations of malls #1-3. However, I think you are evaluating Berlin's malls badly not on the same criteria you used on the other types of malls, but because your dislike the post-modern architecture dream that Berlin embarked on.

I, for instance, found those massively reconstructed places to resemble exactly how they looked before the war (like Hamburg downtown area) "faker" than any post-modern building. Post-modern Berlin is not fake at all, it is not resembling any other era, it is not drawing on Prussian inspiration or whatever.

As for the stores assortment, I doubt they would be any different than in other major commercial areas, enclosed or not, in major German cities... it has nothing to do with architecture but retail preferences and organization. Even in open areas that are not malls at all you will find the same stores.

To sum it up: I think you made an injustice to Berlin. It was a decaying capital from 1910 to 1990. It had never been German major industrial, financial or cultural center, having lost its prominence to other centers of activity. After the war and all the effects of being a divided city, it could had chosen a (wrong, IMO) path of reconstructing the city as it was in Bismarck's time and trying to compete with München or Frankfurt, but it embarked in a very well succeed adventure of building something modern that IS indeed unique among European capitals. You won't find any capital like Berlin. It is probably the only major European capital that, if you happen to visit 10 years from now, you'll find substantial changes, not just a bunch of 5-7 projects like London or the museum-frozen atmosphere of Roma, but a dynamic environment where whole blocks are still being redeveloped from scratch (not only "renovated" or "retrofitted").


----------



## CarlisleSg (May 3, 2011)

Suburbanist said:


> I don't have any problems with malls. They are another option for shopping. Costumers should be free to chose whatever place they want to spend their dollars.


Agree. There are even lots of shopping online. It's a just a matter of where and what you prefer.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ Though I disagree with your preferences, I understand your evaluations of malls #1-3. However, I think you are evaluating Berlin's malls badly not on the same criteria you used on the other types of malls, but because your dislike the post-modern architecture dream that Berlin embarked on.
> 
> I, for instance, found those massively reconstructed places to resemble exactly how they looked before the war (like Hamburg downtown area) "faker" than any post-modern building. Post-modern Berlin is not fake at all, it is not resembling any other era, it is not drawing on Prussian inspiration or whatever.


Wow, who would have believed that. I happen to agree with you on that. I actually like Berlins post-modernism. 

I also think that Berlin would have got the big chains anyway. The question was only in which way. I think the one which was chosen is among the better possible options.


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

WANCH said:


> Like *South China Mall* in Dongguan. Its supposed to be the world's largest mall when it was completed and it's still 99% vacant up to *today*.



Interesting. 

One wonders if the state of malls (skyscrapers, new cities, etc.) like this speaks volumes for the reality of China's future.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^ Why should it? The worst it could show is a real estate bubble. That does not discredit the huge progress the Chinese economy has made so far.


----------



## BearCave (Feb 2, 2007)

I hate shopping malls because they only have the major chain stores but no independent shops. Every mall you go it's always the same. So cultureless and I'm sick of sameness.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

bayviews said:


> Interesting.
> 
> One wonders if the state of malls (skyscrapers, new cities, etc.) like this speaks volumes for the reality of China's future.


South China Mall failed for the simple reasons.

One it is located in the suburbs of Dongguan and to get there is by car. Plus there is no highway access to this area.

Dongguan is more a blue collared city. The majority of its residents are factory workers and most of them can even afford a car.

Those living in neighbouring cities such as Shenzhen or Guangzhou have vibrant shopping centres so they don't need to head to Dongguan to find what they need.

Until now it is 99% vacant.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

I suspect that this is largely economics. Berlin's malls look more like high-end US malls since it is getting plenty of government and private money. Most of the European malls are in the suburbs and appeal to lower earners. They are basically equivalent to Walmart and other big boxes in the US (speaking generally).

Germany has been very hesitant to rebuild cities in traditional forms. I think their balance of new and historic is very exciting and allows for a variety of experiences. As you walk through Berlin (or Frankfurt and some others) you can get a sense of 18th and 19th century and postmodern as you walk across town (or occasionally on the same block). Malls are not likely to look historic (unless you re-open bazaars) but they can be build to integrate nicely onto streets and transit, and Berlin does this pretty well.

China is going to have plenty of economic issues over the years, but having failed shopping centers is just part of implementing a market economy.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

pesto said:


> I suspect that this is largely economics. Berlin's malls look more like high-end US malls since it is getting plenty of government and private money. Most of the European malls are in the suburbs and appeal to lower earners. They are basically equivalent to Walmart and other big boxes in the US (speaking generally).
> 
> Germany has been very hesitant to rebuild cities in traditional forms. I think their balance of new and historic is very exciting and allows for a variety of experiences. As you walk through Berlin (or Frankfurt and some others) you can get a sense of 18th and 19th century and postmodern as you walk across town (or occasionally on the same block). Malls are not likely to look historic (unless you re-open bazaars) but they can be build to integrate nicely onto streets and transit, and Berlin does this pretty well.
> 
> China is going to have plenty of economic issues over the years, but having failed shopping centers is just part of implementing a market economy.


Note that even China has the largest economy in Asia, it is still a *developing country*. And its PPP is much lower compared to its western counterparts and even Japan / South Korea.

Again, the issue here why South China Mall failed is because of *location*.


----------



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

^^Belgian government dicided last week to not see China any longer as an developing country, neither do they see Brazil as a developing country anymore and also some other Azian countries like Taiwan. They are now discribed as very strong economy countries and don't longer enjoy the rights of low import costs, that in order to give new developing countries and third world countries more place on the market.

The European commision was talking about doing this for the whole EU to if I remember correctly but I could be wrong.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ I think it is wrong to give poorer countries preferences to export to Europe at expense of Europe's own industrial and agricultural sectors.


----------



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

^^Well at least the number is now reduced to from 150 to 60 or so...

But really? You don't like cheap stuff? You would rather pay 10times more for everything?


----------



## Disturbing Reality (Mar 28, 2011)

joshsam said:


> ^^*Belgian government dicided last week to not see China any longer as an developing country*, neither do they see Brazil as a developing country anymore and also some other Azian countries like Taiwan. They are now discribed as very strong economy countries and don't longer enjoy the rights of low import costs, that in order to give new developing countries and third world countries more place on the market.
> 
> The European commision was talking about doing this for the whole EU to if I remember correctly but I could be wrong.


china is indeed a fast growing economy... but it still has a long way to go be become a developed nation in a holistic point of view...
in asia, i guess only japan, singapore and south korea are developed-countries...

but seeing this article


> Brussels wants to halve recipients of EU trade benefits
> 
> ANDREW WILLIS
> 
> ...


i think i understand why they have to slash down the list of "developing-countries"...


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

*Kindly keep the thread to a discussion on malls, please. It is veering rapidly to Country vs Country, and if it does not get back on course it will soon be closed. Thank you.*


----------



## Disturbing Reality (Mar 28, 2011)

oooooooops... i apologize for the off-topic comment...:nocrook:


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Anyway as with China's case, The South China Mall is already a failure. And this is also the case of *Golden Resources Mall* in Beijing though this is better off compared to the former.










Both malls just show that it is not a good idea to construct mega malls in Chinese suburbs or outskirts for the meantime.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

The Netherlands has built two big shopping complexes that resemble faux-villages in architecture and design. But it is all new terrain developed over farmland. 

Those are "open malls", without roofs, surrounded by parking garages and fenced/walled. The most famous are the Designer Outlet Roermond and the Batavia Stad. The latter has an interesting "360o" tour (http://www.bataviastad.nl/en).

It is interesting to note that both cities (Roermond and Lelystad) were these malls are set are otherwise quiet places, so the centers bring a decent amount out shoppers that otherwise would not flock there. Batavia Stad, particularly, resembles an old fortress (completely fake), with walls and chain gates


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^
How cool is that, I've been there already once quite some time ago. It was probably before this designer outlet was built, and I was there on a tour for the ship work shop which the outlet probably has its name from. 

Regarding the outlet centre. It seems to be a fashion that those centres are constructed in open mall design with fake traditional village appearance. The difference to traditional suburban shopping mall concepts appears to be cosmetic only. Except maybe that the venues are in the open and therefore share the weather based advantages/disadvantages of shopping streets. It is also a mono layer design therefore unlike many closed malls. There is absolutely no mix of use and it is also pretty isolated and very closed fortress like towards the surrounding environment. In this regard, some traditional shopping malls are often better designed with some mix of use for example. PT access seems to be poor as well.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ Outlet stores sell 3 types of merchandise:

1. Slightly defective stuff, usually imperceptible for the common person but that would be spotted by a fashion-conscious one

2. Collections running out or outdated already.

3. Merchandise that flopped on regular stores and are sold at discounts to empty shelves.

On top of that, most outlets in Europe also sell regular products.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ Outlet stores sell 3 types of merchandise:
> 
> 1. Slightly defective stuff, usually imperceptible for the common person but that would be spotted by a fashion-conscious one
> 
> ...


That list is right but definitely incomplete. Many outlet stores definitely sell purpose made inferior products carrying the expensive brand. 

I've bought only once a product at an outlet centre and that appared to be inferior quality. This was in the US however. Funnily enough the big outlet centre there was in walkable distance to where I stayed and still in a rather central urban location. Anyway, it is possible that in the US outlet stores sell more purpose made inferior products than in Europe.


----------



## maniei (Sep 22, 2009)

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ You might save more money than that. But the point is that it is very likely that you buy inferior products. Customers of those outet stores usually don't care about that however. After all they don't want to buy good products but the brand only and an authentic brand is what they get. One with inferior quality.
> 
> That new town centre in Eschborn looks interesting, on ground flour level even aesthetically pleasing (which is the most important thing) but I don't quite like the design of the buildings above that. Sadly enough it does not look very lively and at least one prime retail location appears to be empty, but this impression might be wrong. It is hard to judge that just from a few photos. Moreover you probably can't expect buslting urbanity in a suburb anyway.


The pics were taken quite shortly after the inauguration, where not all stores were rented and people were yet to get to know it.

As I understood that thing is quite a success, the cafes and restaurants have a healthy amount of customers. 
The complex is right next to the town-hall and a supermarket, so its pretty much the liveliest spot in that suburb.
Despite all that "rather chilled" and "not dead" is the highest that place can reach atmosphere-wise.

http://www.neue-mitte-eschborn.info/


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^ I guess you are right. After all this is a rather small place. You can't expect mad urbanity there  What you describe here seems to be already a great success story.


----------



## dustin.feroz (May 24, 2011)

i like some malls, actually. especially the large ones where you could get everything you need in one drive.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

The new thing in the US are Lifestyle Centers. I don't know about their fate currently due to the economy but before the recession, they were more popular in construction than the big malls that we are accustomed to around here.

Here is Evergreen Walk, a lifestyle center in South Windsor which is a suburb northeast of Hartford.










Another lifestyle center, Blue Back Square in West Hartford, which contains apartments.










Both were completed in less than the last five years. They generally attract a more upscale clientele which has caused the two flagship malls in the area (Westfarms and Buckland Hills) to become more upscale themselves by attracting higher-end retail. The competition is fierce especially between Buckland Hills Mall and Evergreen Walk because they are very close to each other and the construction of Evergreen Walk has siphoned visitors from it.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Interesting examples. Those two projects hardly could be more different from each other than they are, apart from the fact that they are both no closed malls. 

Evergreen walk looks to me like a random single use mall, with the sole difference that its an open mall. It fits into its neighbourhood however which is full of typical big suburbian malls utterly pedestrian hostile environment and very low density residential neighbourhoods. 

Blue back square appears to be right in the centre of an old suburb which probably had seen better times already. The area around it is easily accessible for pedestrians and the density is not as low as in the other case even though I would not call it dense either. Anyway, this project is not just an open mall, its a true urban centre. which is integrated into the historic centre, an already existing urban mall. Office uses and residential uses are vertically mixed with the retail. Library, church and town hall already existed in that location and are integrated as well. Plus they added a pedestrian crossing directly connecting the existing mall to the new development. 

I found some blog where locals commented on its construction and almost fell from my chair when I read about the scale of that development being "inhumane" and far too dense. Suburbians have to be a special breed of people indeed.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Do you remember the name of the blog?


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Slartibartfas said:


> Interesting examples. Those two projects hardly could be more different from each other than they are, apart from the fact that they are both no closed malls.
> 
> Evergreen walk looks to me like a random single use mall, with the sole difference that its an open mall. It fits into its neighbourhood however which is full of typical big suburbian malls utterly pedestrian hostile environment and very low density residential neighbourhoods.
> 
> ...


Indeed, they aren't very similar when comparing them to each other alone but they are both seen as alternatives to the enclosed shopping mall styles in the past, especially in my current location which isn't really "forward-thinking" when it comes to development. Just 10 years ago, something like Blue Back Square would be unimaginable. Because of the NIMBY-ness of the area, it took years to come into fruition. But now, most people have accepted it and it's quickly become a landmark of the town that it is in, and a showing that it has "grown up".

Evergreen Walk itself is pretty much an outdoor mall but it has a generally pedestrian friendly structure with storefronts that emulate a small traditional New England town center. I can't find better pics unfortunately, that one was admittedly not a good one. But since it's on the edge of a sea of retail (huge development) in a more exurban locale, it is a victim of it's location. It also has no mixed use, and contains free parking. It's probably closer to a true definition of a lifestyle center. 

People seem to like that style of retail these days moreso than a mall. For the most part, I believe the days of mall construction in the US have come to an end. Not only because of the economy and overretailing but because it isn't seen as "hip" as a walkable outdoor center.


----------



## Skyprince (May 2, 2006)

In Tropics/hot region with extreme/unpredictable weather It simply kills to shop in "Streetshops" like in Europe. So Mall is the... only option ?


----------



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

^^Belgium/Netherlands and Uk have very unpredictable weather to. I admid that we don't have much problems with heat, but it winter it can rain for weeks or it can freeze for days on end. Not the best shopping weather if you ask me. Still streetshops are the way to go...

And more north, in Scandinavia, it freezes up to -15°C during the day in winter. Still people go to street shops.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Skyprince said:


> In Tropics/hot region with extreme/unpredictable weather It simply kills to shop in "Streetshops" like in Europe. So Mall is the... only option ?


This is the case for very extreme climates but only there. Temperatures of 35°C and grilling sun for example are no excuse. It certainly has to have higher temperatures or extreme humidity for a considerable part of the year. Sure places like that exist.


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

joshsam said:


> And more north, in Scandinavia, it freezes up to -15°C during the day in winter. Still people go to street shops.


More like up to -30°C at worst.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Xusein said:


> Evergreen Walk itself is pretty much an outdoor mall but it has a generally pedestrian friendly structure with storefronts that emulate a small traditional New England town center. I can't find better pics unfortunately, that one was admittedly not a good one. But since it's on the edge of a sea of retail (huge development) in a more exurban locale, it is a victim of it's location. It also has no mixed use, and contains free parking. It's probably closer to a true definition of a lifestyle center.


I don't know what a "lifestyle center" is supposed to be but as far as you describe it it sounds like a synonym for "open mall". In my opinion Evergreen Walk tries to emulate a New England town center, and is rater bad at that because in the end it is just an open shopping mall, shops only in a sea of free parking and hillariously hostile to pedestrians beyond the surrounding parking lot. Blue Back Square however does not emulate a New England town center, it _is_ one. 



> People seem to like that style of retail these days moreso than a mall. For the most part, I believe the days of mall construction in the US have come to an end. Not only because of the economy and overretailing but because it isn't seen as "hip" as a walkable outdoor center.


I like that development. It is a pity that in Vienna the trend still is all on closed malls. Sure, open malls make little sense here, revival of shopping streets would be the alternative here to malls. At least the mall segment appears to be increasingly saturated. I doubt there will be a lot more developments in the near future than those that are already planned or U/C. One big suburban car centric mall is among them and otherwise I think 3 different railway station based malls, all 3 of them at or close to shopping streets. Personally I prefer shopping streets but I think its good if malls are at least integrated into big railway hubs. I mean it makes sense.


----------



## Clone (May 19, 2010)

I like mall's but the must be inside of the city. I want to go to a mall and then go to a bar and enjoy the city.

There recently opened a new mall in my city and I like it a lot. You can judgde for yourself. BTW, the mall was new the building not. It was integrated in a historical ball room. I saw somebody else already posted about this, so I wont post too many pictures.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Slartibartfas said:


> I don't know what a "lifestyle center" is supposed to be but as far as you describe it it sounds like a synonym for "open mall". In my opinion Evergreen Walk tries to emulate a New England town center, and is rater bad at that because in the end it is just an open shopping mall, shops only in a sea of free parking and hillariously hostile to pedestrians beyond the surrounding parking lot. Blue Back Square however does not emulate a New England town center, it _is_ one.


I don't see a problem with that. People park their cars (the parking lot is likely bigger in area than the whole built-up mall anyway) and go shop. It likely gives the shoppers a better experience without affecting their own neighborhoods, e.g., without having a multi-story development right under their noses. So you can still shop in such a place without gaining a 4-story neighboring building down your block! Your residential area keeps being strictly residential only, few incentives for outsiders to venture on your street and affect your privacy, while you can easily drive 10-30 minutes for a nice mall that is not entirely closed. Best of two worlds IMHO.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> I don't see a problem with that. People park their cars (the parking lot is likely bigger in area than the whole built-up mall anyway) and go shop. It likely gives the shoppers a better experience without affecting their own neighborhoods, e.g., without having a multi-story development right under their noses. So you can still shop in such a place without gaining a 4-story neighboring building down your block! Your residential area keeps being strictly residential only, few incentives for outsiders to venture on your street and affect your privacy, while you can easily drive 10-30 minutes for a nice mall that is not entirely closed. Best of two worlds IMHO.


If you have a look at the Blue back square development you'll see that of the zone of attraction only a small part is directly within or across the development area. I fully agree that not everyone wants to live a life where he can go to the shop or the coffee shop by just walking downstairs, but I am very confident that a sufficient share of people actually love to live in a spot like that without the need to move to the downtown area of the city. I think the market dynamics also confirm this very well. 

If evergreen walk would be of multi use, including residential, I strongly doubt anyone would be negatively affected. Only those who'd like to live there would move there and market interest shows pretty clearly that there is demand for these kind of apartments also in car centric suburbs.

Apart from that I am not exactly sure what the gain is from making it literally impossible to reach the mall on your own feet or by bicycle. Why not having pedestrian crossings at the crossings at least? It would not even stop traffic, especially not if pedestrian frequency is low. While I think that only few pedestrians would use it, I could imagine it that taking the bike could be quite attractive for a bigger number of residents around the mall. 

This does not mean anyone is forced to anything, merely that people get more options at very little costs.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ That would be no problem. People could bike or walk there. However, how are people supposed to carry shopping bags for large distances?

What I like about that pattern of development is that it offers, at least, a middle ground between the build-nothing-near-my-subdivision folks and the reconstruct-the-neighborhood-and-drop-the-residential-only-zoning folks.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ That would be no problem. People could bike or walk there. However, how are people supposed to carry shopping bags for large distances?


Well, they could, if they could. Have a look at the surrounding of the Evergreen mall. It does not look like it is possible at all to get to it from the surrounding neighbourhoods without endangering your life and conducting serious jaywalking across four lane roads. 

The good news is however that this problem could be resolved quite easily by creating pedestrian crossings at least at the already existing road crossings. It would not cost a lot to do so. Well, and eithr pathways across the forest or sidewalks would have to connect the residential islands with each other. Preferably ones which could be used by bikes as well as pedestrians. 

You'd be surprised what you can transport by bike if you optimize a regular bike. If you want to carry a full car load, you can go for a bike trailer. This is serious stuff. There exist plenty of options which don't cost a lot either. I am not saying everyone has to use them but they could be very attractive for a certain share of people, especially those who hate to waste time for doing purposless sports all the time and would like to get their body moving for a real purpose (getting somewhere). The lazy or not so fit people could head for electric bikes. While they need electricity, they are ways more efficient than the car and also have the big advantage of saving parking lots for people which have to driver further. 

For pedestrians you get these sort of buggies btw. You can shop quite a bit to fill the larger versions of them. 



> What I like about that pattern of development is that it offers, at least, a middle ground between the build-nothing-near-my-subdivision folks and the reconstruct-the-neighborhood-and-drop-the-residential-only-zoning folks.


What I like about it is that it reduces distances also for people in the suburbs. The multi use new town centres even introduce very short distances for those who are ready to pay more for that kind of luxury (like paying more for location instead of having a pool). Good projects also are connected well for pedestrians and cyclists. Furthermore are they potential seeds for PT networks.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Another solution is to have a child, the underneath of their buggies make excellent storage for shopping


----------

