Not literally a vehicle, but the figurative Hummer of consumerism: the shopping mall. An NYT writer reflects on her trip to the international mall convention in Las Vegas, where developers previewed grandiose plans to expand the primitive auto-oriented, chain-store-driven model for shopping centers:
Surely, I thought, the entries will reflect the extent to which business as usual — i.e., massive anchor retail tenants surrounded by thousands (even millions) of square feet of specialized yet mass retail, in settings only accessible by car — cannot possibly continue. Having just witnessed the Sony-backed Metreon mall in San Francisco shift from its failed existence as a “state of the art technology and entertainment marketplace” to a modest farmer’s market, I’d seen the writing on the wall. Hadn’t the shopping center folks?
Some have, but surprisingly, many haven’t. Despite near-non-existent consumer spending, the declining popularity of shopping as America’s favorite pastime and the chilling effect foreclosed homes in housing developments are surely having on nearby malls, most entries in the [International Council on Shopping Centers] competition responded less to the future of the shopping mall than to the glory days to which we’ve recently bid adieu. I was struck by how little attention entrants paid to things like sustainable architecture, alternative transit or changing consumer attitudes about consumption….
I’ve been ranting about the Dearborn Street mall, which developer Darrell Vange canceled in April, saying it was economically unfeasible. Some neighbors decried the loss of a planned Target in the central city (which was the best thing the mall had going for it). Other neighbors, however, opposed the project (the size of seven Westlake Centers, filled with chain retailers) that would have used up two acres of street and included 2,300 parking spaces. (It wasn’t accessible exclusively by car, but it was desiged for automobiles and over a mile from the light-rail station.) The neighborhood opposition insisted that the choice “mall and a Target or nothing at all” was a false dilemma. Indeed, one of the developers in Las Vegas bucked the trend of malls that insulate themselves from street activity and rely on cars. Instead, they plan to build to the sidewalk, using a Target as the anchor tenant:
Fitzgerald Associates Architects’ Wilson Yard is not futuristic in the traditional sense — no biomorphic forms, moving sidewalks or shimmering touch screens. Instead, FAA recognizes that the future is already here and we’d better start building for it. The project dispenses with the notion of a freestanding mall and conceives instead of a walkable, mixed-use community. Key to their design is LEED silver certification, open space and multi-modal access (not just cars but rail, transit and pedestrian).
If we want to continue build massive shopping centers in Seattle (and in the suburbs), we need to abandon the model of University Village and Northgate and South Center and start building malls like this one—built to the sidewalk, integrated into the neighborhood, and linked to mass transit.
Tip from the Cornichon (who is also my father).
I have wasted more gas trying to find a store at Southcenter than it took to get there.
Forget it – make all malls interconnected with monorail and pedestrian skyways if you want me to shop at them.
Pedestrian friendly malls are great for shopping but not for buying. You can’t expect retailers to want to invest in a place without parking.
The only good reason for parking is so we can hold demolition derbies – with cash prizes for the winner.
Do you not realize how many buses gravitate around south center? It wasn’t designed that way, but it happens.
Agreed. University Village is particularly evil in the way it forces car/pedestrian confrontations at multiple points between virtually every parking space and the entrance to any store.
@5, I disagree; I think U Village is paradise, for this very reason. It allows one to achieve the greatest pleasure known to man — shouting “fuck! fuck! you motherfucker!” as a driver at a pedestrian followed by the same act as a pedestrian to a driver, multiple times in rapid succession.