Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, I see plenty of white teens/young adults that dress that way in Roseville, too and in Arden. And act trashy, because they think its cool to do so... sad.
That's not exactly new--suburban teenagers have been hanging out in malls, and dressing in ways that offend their elders' sensibilities, pretty much as long as there have been malls, if not longer. Suburbs are boring, which is why grown-ups like them and teenagers hate them. Generally, teenagers have limited mobility (most don't have cars yet) and suburbs have limited or nonexistent public gathering places, so the mall becomes the closest thing to a social gathering place.
20-25 years ago, I was one of those kids, dressing in what passed then as rebellious clothing (trashed jeans, combat boots, leather or army surplus jacket, T-shirt with something offensive on it, and funny-looking hair) and hanging out at the mall. I did so primarily out of boredom, and drawing disapproving stares from ancient 40 year old codgers helped relieve that boredom, so perhaps I cut them a little slack these days. It's not really a great use of one's time, but it's less boring than hanging out by the 7-11.
I don't know that this belongs in this topic -- but I don't get how you back up malls not belonging in the central city -- or rather the CBD. A mall typifies what a central city should contain -- businesses in a dense area.
Cities should contain mixed uses in a dense area, close enough to each other to facilitate access by walking and transit, in addition to cars. Malls contain a single use, surrounded by a sea of parking, set far back from the street in a manner that makes other transportation options difficult if not impossible.
Quote:
The fact that they started building malls in suburbs and that started to perhaps help draw people away from cities does not have anything to do with the fact that malls fit, actually, better in a central city.
Malls draw people from nearby residential areas, but they generally do not draw people from remote residential areas. They generally don't draw people to new areas that are not built out--they are built in response to new residential housing. There is very much little reason for someone who lives in Roseville to visit the Downtown Plaza mall--a Macy's there sells pretty much the same stuff as a Macy's here.
In a place where people don't live, like most downtowns, there is no local draw, which limits local traffic. Because people who live in suburbs that have their own malls don't have to come downtown to visit the mall, they generally won't. This limits your market to nearby areas that don't have malls--in this case, South Sacramento has no mall since Florin was demolished. Thus, South Sacramento residents have a reason to come downtown and shop at the mall. They seem to like it. The people coming from the other direction seem less comfortable with this.
Quote:
Putting malls in the countryside started new development and cities around them, or helped. It should have the same effect in the central city.
Putting malls in the countryside has that effect because land in the countryside is cheap, and traditionally greenfield development has been heavily subsidized--by public-funded highways and federal infrastructure funds, by FHA and VA loans that enormously preferred greenfield projects over existing neighborhoods, by accelerated depreciation that made cheap new construction of greenfield shopping centers easier than reinvesting in city-center retail location, etcetera. Because the land is cheap and the project is subsidized, you can provide the massive parking lots needed around EVERYTHING in a suburb (malls, supermarkets, churches, schools, parks...) in order to facilitate auto-centric development.
Established downtowns lack open, unimproved land, and the land is expensive (lots of demand, little supply.) Public subsidies like redevelopment funds barely make up the difference. Because cities like Sacramento were built up before the automobile, it is difficult to use an auto-centric model on the CBD, and the huge "free" parking lots (actually subsidized by the owner, thus only feasible with cheap land) are impossible to provide.
Quote:
It may have a commercial feel to it -- but what's the problem, the roof? It's just a lot of commerce in a dense area, and that to me fits 100% in the CBD -- not out in the middle of an exurb.
It's really more of a cat and mouse. The fac they started building malls in the suburbs and country side should not demonify what malls are, simply, a collection of retail stores.
Malls work fine in their natural environment--car-centric, single-use-zoned areas like suburbs. They don't work well as a substitute for cities.
During the decline of downtowns, a lot of cities tried to draw people back by pretending their downtown WAS actually a mall--not a mall IN downtown, but turning downtown INTO a giant mall. The result was generally a failure, because the suburban mall doesn't work well in an urban context. The only places they did work were in places like Santa Monica, which is actually a suburban mall that masquerades as an urban mall (it is located in a suburban area, many miles from downtown Los Angeles.)
A mall that exists within a larger downtown can work well, because it is essentially a retail use among other uses--basically a big department store. The problem comes when downtown is supposed to BE a mall, rather than just containing one.
Quote:
Done well, is an addition to cities. I can think of many. And yes, there are malls in central Chicago. Indianapolis has a great mall (central). San Antonio is dense too, the fact people drive cars in the central city doesn't really make it what I'd call a car city. The downtown is dense.
I have trouble thinking of major cities that do not have malls or commercial retails centers in the central city.
It really seems like you have more problem with the 'connotation' of the mall, or the roof that just happens to bind the stores together.
San Antonio is about half as dense as Sacramento: 1.35 million in 400 square miles means about 2800 people per square mile. Just because a downtown has tall buildings doesn't make it dense--how many people actually live downtown vs. in the suburbs? Part of why a mall doesn't work well in downtown Sacramento is because only about 3000 people live in the CBD--about 500 are SRO residents with limited incomes, 500 are seniors in the SHRA residences, 500 are homeless, and 1000 are in the jail. Thus the nearby customer market is limited.
Downtown San Antonio is primarily oriented towards tourists and visitors--the real business center of the city is outside the downtown in a ring of business parks. Like a lot of Western cities, the city expanded its boundaries to absorb new suburban developments outside its borders, to the detriment of its downtown. Public transit is limited to buses (their "streetcars" aren't streetcars, they are buses made up to look like streetcars) and it's kind of nice that they have some late-night owl service and the fares are cheap. But yes, I'd say that San Antonio looks pretty car-centric to me. I will give them points for having plans for both BRT and an actual streetcar system.
"Gang-bangyness" is generally an euphemism for "young nonwhite and/or nonwealthy people go there." Roseville is a far whiter neighborhood, there aren't as many nonwhites who go to the mall because it's a lot longer drive to get there and public transit is pretty much nonexistent.
Retail has a place in cities--trying to emulate suburban malls in suburban settings does not. Urban retail works very differently--and done right, it can be very successful. Midtown is doing good business, because they have the right model--people live there AND shop there.
Malls don't belong in a city? I'm sorry, but that's just an absurd point and there is literally no way to defend it.
Simple rules of economics: Products sell where there is a consumder demand and a group of vendors are willing to fulfill that demand. Is there some theoretical reason you've found that vendors cannot fulfill that demand via a segragated lot where they all congregate, i.e, a mall?
The fact that there are malls that not only exist but thrive in cities throughout the U.S disproves your point.
I used to live in Spokane, WA. Is Spokane a city? Yes. Does it have a mall? Yes, right downtown. And another mall just 5 miles north within the city limits. But supposedly those malls have no place within that city?
Edmonton, Alberta, Ca: City? Yes. Does it have a mall? Yes, one of the largest and most succesfull in the world.
Wburg: All you are doing is listing your theories, i.e, your "subjective" views on why you believe something could or should not work.
I think the Indianapolis mall reference was the best of all. I have a friend from Indianapolis that used to frequent that mall. Maybe you should write the lessors of the various vendor spaces as well as the contractor that constructed it and tell them they made a big, big mistake, because it just can't work. It has no place.
Then you make a point that a "suburban mall doesn't work in an urban context", and that many cities failed by trying to turn their downtown "into a mall". What???
Why go so deep into debating what an actual "mall" is? What exactly is the end goal here? So a collection of vendors connected by skywalks; mall, or not in your opinion? A collection of vendors not housed under a single covered lot; mall, or not in your opinion? Let me guess, that is a "stripmall" and you have a specific geographical area where those could and should only exist.
I'm sorry, but again your wrong. Minneapolis is a perfect example of what you tried to contend is "generally a failure", i.e, the downtown core is connected by dozens of skywalks that link various vendors to each other. It's a perfect example of "turning downtown INTO a mall", and it works, it thrives, and it's one of the hallmarks of that city.
You are a smart guy, but you fight some losing battles here. You tend to pick things to debate just for the sake of debating them. Some of your debates are equivalent to the guy at the local sports bar that claims, "the yankees suck", and then gives you 20 reasons why. Then you reply, "didn't they win the world series last year?", and he just continues to debate.
Same thing here. You say, "Malls don't belong in a city (or city core, whatever)". Other people answer: "Don't dozens of cities HAVE malls though?" . . . . . you continue to debate the topic, for some reason.
Malls don't belong in a city? I'm sorry, but that's just an absurd point and there is literally no way to defend it.
Suburban malls don't belong in urban places. Many downtown malls have failed because there is not sufficient population near the mall to support the mall, and suburban malls are closer and more convenient for suburban customers.
Malls in city centers succeed only if there is sufficient nearby population to support them, or if there is no suitable equivalent--or if the mall offers something that the suburban malls don't that is compelling enough to draw people. But often, having a formal "mall" is superfluous. Midtown Sacramento is not a mall, but economically it does better than the Downtown Plaza mall. Why? Because there is a nearby midtown population--they are the regular customers of Midtown's business district. And because Midtown offers, in close proximity, a lot of things that aren't available elsewhere in the region in terms of shopping, dining, cultural and nightlife options. But that isn't the whole story. Midtown's business district also includes offices where people work, and apartments where people live, and is directly adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Thus, you don't need a car to shop--or even a bike, unless you just happen to like bikes.
So it's like a mall--only without that icky parking lot. In other words, something far better suited to cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casportsfan
Wburg: All you are doing is listing your theories, i.e, your "subjective" views on why you believe something could or should not work.
I am not talking about all malls in all cities. I am trying to explain why, in many cases, the "downtown mall" concept, pitched as a way to save many dying downtowns in the 1960s and 1970s, was generally a failure.
No, being enclosed doesn't necessarily make a place a mall. Plenty of malls are open-air--there is a whole category of "lifestyle centers" that are primarily open-air with large structures while still basically being malls, and "power centers," giant strips of big boxes with islands of chain retail like along Truxel Avenue in Natomas, are basically malls.
What makes them malls is auto-centric orientation and single use. Downtown Minneapolis uses skyways because it is pretty dang cold there (although, of course, that's very subjective...) Rather than just walk around in the cold and complain about it, they figured out a way to get people from building to building when it's really cold there via skyways. Does that make it a mall? Not necessarily. Are there multiple uses in close proximity? Do people live nearby, meaning there is a local population to use those services? If so, then no, it probably isn't a mall.
I suppose I am being too overly general. So let me narrow things down to specifics:
Downtown Plaza and the K Street Mall have been a dismal failure for Sacramento, in particular, because they are a failed attempt to move a suburban mall into an urban setting. It has failed because downtown Sacramento lacks a sufficient nearby population to support a mall, and people who live in most other parts of town have other, closer options--including Midtown, which, rather than having a mall, has an actual mixed-use shopping district that its residents prefer to the downtown mall. Its urban setting is uncomfortable for suburban visitors to downtown Sacramento, and it does not offer anything unique or unusual that cannot be found at other malls.
And yes, everything I have posted here is subjective. As I have said before, there's nothing wrong with being subjective, or stating one's opinion--so I will continue to do so. I don't mind being challenged or called on things, it encourages me to think and challenges me to defend my positions. Sometimes I even change my mind!
I would take issue with your references with respect to the "failure" of Sacramentos' downtown mall. We could debate the definition of failure and the relative impact of a down economy on all businesses that are dependant upon disposable income, but let's just assume that it has been a failure.
The entire concept behind a mall is that it provides the consumer with a unique experience that cannot be duplicated otherwise. A mall is a social event in and of itself. Many people go to the mall simply to be seen, to socialize, or to meet others. It offers the consumer a diversity of purchase options, from food, to electronics, clothing, entertainment (movie theatre, candy corn, etc.), novelty items, books, and the list goes on.
That is the draw of a mall. It is sensory overload in some respects. And make no mistake, there is a group of people that sat down and discussed all of these factors, and asked the question "how can we get a group of people to be exposed to our products that normally wouldn't?" Well, the answer is, you provide people with diverse entertainment and social options. You get them to show up for the experience, and they are much more likey to buy items they normally wouldn't have.
Does midtown offer that? No. I can't find the "mall" experience anywhere in midtown. If I want to buy a pair of pants, I can find a small vendor on J st., or 20th and K. But then if I want to see a movie, I've got to drive over to Broadway or over to the mall. If I want a frozen yogurt afterwards, I've gotta go back to 18th and L or over to 15th and R.
Sure, if I want one specific product, it may be easier to just go to a store without the hastle of parking, etc., in the downtown plaza. I would agree with you there. But the mall was not designed for any one specific vendor.
And I agree with you, of course having easy/local access to a vendor or a mall is important, but only to a degree. The mall was designed to draw people with disposable income in to buy luxury/entertainment items. Electronics, clothing, entertainment, etc. It wasn't designed for the every day Joe that lives accross the street to do his day to day shopping. People that want to spend money on these type of items are generally not detured by an extra 3-5 mile drive. In fact, the actual purchase of the product is as much a part of the experience as owning the product itself, in the same way that new car buyers want that "new car smell".
I could make a strong argument that the lack of security and general maintenance near and around the downtown plaza has as larger negative affect on the mall than the lack of downtown residents has. I know I was detured from going there for that every reason before I even moved here, and that is STILL one of the reasons that I avoid the Arden Fair mall, and that mall is not a central core mall.
the mall is placed well in my opinion (the downtown plaza mall) it's near the beautiful capital grounds and other "things to see" in the city that people from neighboring areas might stop for when they come to Sacramento. It is just "part of the experience" and helps to add some vibrancy to that area. It's not a mega mall -- a mega mall there would be wrong. To me it fits the landscape and is a nice attraction for people who might not live there but might do a day or weekend visit. I drove there when I lived in Rocklin -- I could do my shopping in Roseville too but I found the downtown mall more managable, and I liked to walk the capital grounds and other attractions at the same time. The mall is nearly open air in the way it connects to the older part of town and the streets near the capital.
A vibrant city should be able to contain both independent vendors on the street and a mall or malls. Both have there place in cities -- and I don't see parking being an issue considering it's an elevated parking garage and not a huge parking lot in the central city.
It seems to me that the downtown area may be lacking on other attractions to bring people to the core, or the "gang bangyness" is becoming a real factor that tends to keep people away.
As for San Antonio -- I live in the downtown area. Overall San Antonio is very large and suburban outside the central city, but I'm not talking about that area. I'm talking about the downtown area which is dense, and contains a mall. There are plenty of malls in the outer rings of San Antonio. I don't see the sake of arguing that. It's just one of many, many cities with a mall in it, in addition to office buildings, independent retail stores, attractions, and restraunts. And no, not a lot of people live in the central city of San Antonio.
the mall is placed well in my opinion (the downtown plaza mall)...
It seems to me that the downtown area may be lacking on other attractions to bring people to the core, or the "gang bangyness" is becoming a real factor that tends to keep people away.
Unless and until the city does something with the 7th-8th Street section of the K Street Mall, I don't think you'll see or can expect a true resurgence in the Downtown Plaza, if at all. The overall decay and emptiness now extends well into the Plaza with its high vacancy rate.
Add to this the light rail availability for the fare-jumping gang bangers from South Sac to "invade" the general area and the lack of truley close-in restaurants and other attractions that could draw families and the results are predictable and all too obvious.
Twenty years ago when I first moved to Sac and began work downtown the area was far more vibrant. But over the years restaurant after restaurant closed down, stores on the Mall up through 9th Street went out of business and state offices, the RT, etc. moved off the mall and further away from it, leaching-off a great deal of what had been healthy 9-5, M-F downtown business. Weekends were comparitively slack but for several years there always seemed to be something going on downtown that attracted and brought people in, including an evening farmers market, street fairs and other events. Now, many of the former draws to the downtown, such as the Jazz Festival, have given up therir downtown venues in favor of Cal Expo and other sites leaving the Mall to the homeless and downtrodden, amplified by the many SROs that surround it.
I've been saying and mourning it for years but a dearth of cohesive, realistic planning and adequate policing, coupled with either a lack of will or deficit of ability, have resulted in what is almost a dead zone compared to what it was.
It was painful to watch, especially as a downtown dweller.
Bob Shallit: Two developer teams get K Street endorsements - Sacramento Business, Housing Market News | Sacramento Bee (http://www.sacbee.com/2010/06/17/2828434/bob-shallit-two-developer-teams.html - broken link)
Things were tied up for years primarily because one intractable property owner ("Mo" Mohanna) refused to cooperate with a 2005 proposal for the blocks, and then a fire on the 800 block destroyed some of the buildings. Those issues are finally resolved after a long fight. The city sent out a request for qualifications and got four plans--they are combining two of the four plans.
One is by D&S Development, who turned a warehouse on 14th and R into a dozen residential lofts and two of Midtown's best new independent businesses (Magpie, Shady Lady Lady) and a local chain (Burgers & Brew) and made a quiet corner into an active, fun destination day and night, but also a place where people live. That half will include 136 rental units and 37,000 feet of retail space, by repairing the building fronts on the 700 block and building apartments on the back half. The other half is by David Taylor and CIM, who did the Sheraton and 800 J projects. Theirs will include 110 residential units and 32,000 square feet of retail, by fixing up the old Bel-Vue Apartments and new construction where the Feldhusen, Sam's Hof Brau and the vacant lot at 8th and K stand.
Maybe you have missed it, Curmudgeon, but the Jazz Festival came back to Old Sacramento several years ago, and festivals happen downtown quite often now: the Amgen bike race, for example, and this weekend, Sacramento's Pride event happens on Capitol Mall. The corner of 10th and Capitol has only gotten more interesting, with a lot of nightlife and restaurant options, and more under construction. As to the SROs, they are currently at an all-time low on K Street: as their numbers have gone down, the number of homeless has gone up.
I remember a slice of the Jazz Festival coming down to Old Sac again but they also used to have at least one outdoor venue on the Mall across from the Convention Center as well as smaller performances put on by individual groups down the Mall and into the Plaza as youth performance venues and warm-ups. Have those come back.
I also remember the issue with "Mo" less than fondly and was disgusted that he was permitted to stand in the way of safety and progress as long as he did while continuing to rent his wrecks to questionable and low-class businesses. Amgen's been good but centers around the Capitol. Of course, there are also the many West and North Lawn demonstrations for entertainment.
I sincerely hope these budding plans really do come to fruition. The city needs them to become vibrant again.
By the way, I read with amusement about Bulls. Those mechanical bulls were made "famous" in the movie, Urban Cowboy featuring Mickey Gilley's nightclub in Pasadena, Texas. Mickey Gilley, who no longer was with the club when the movie was made, has a cafe/cantina and a theater near us in Branson, MO. I hope Bulls lasts longer than the Bull Market did and doesn't have as many changes of name and ownership.
Last edited by Curmudgeon; 06-18-2010 at 12:09 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
