'This Waterfront Needs A Highway': The Huge Mistakes Cities Keep Making

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Shawn

There’s no chance of running into talent outside of your organization if you’re in a suburban office park; I’ve hired people I’ve met at lunch or run into just walking around my building in the center of the city - my building has a bunch of competitor and industry-related companies in it. You will never have these opportunities in a walled-garden campus.

Again, some companies locate their headquarters in a downtown, many do not. What works for some, doesn't work for others. Since you're from Boston, you know how many businesses are not in downtown Boston and you're aware of the 128 corridor.





Take note of all of the non-downtown/suburban locations of Fortune 1000 companies.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Might as well post this: The 1947 Freeway Plan for San Francisco


People literally put their bodies in front of the bulldozers Tienanmen-style and stopped it but can you imagine if they hadn't?

I'm a little confused at the routing of the 280 and now that I look at it, the routing of the 101 and what I guess they were going to call the 101 Bypass [that wouldn't be confusing!].

[lrt's friend]

For the same reasons why waterfront highways were built, decades earlier waterfront railways were built. This certainly applied to Toronto. It was the point of least resistance, where the waterfront was filled in to build industry and that industry needed railways.

[mhays]

Some of those suburban companies would locate in downtowns or other urban districts if they made those decisions today. This is related to another common topic in the commercial real estate world...how to make suburban locations more urban so they can recruit workers.

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

The mall talked about in this article was built in Germany in 2012. This isn't some 1950s suburb in the US.


1. That's assuming that you're talking about a city with top-tier urban infrastructure. I doubt cities like that are the ones really struggling.

2. Why would the amount of tax revenue per acre be in any way a meaningful metric? Maybe in an island country like Japan where land is limited, but certainly not in a country like the US where half the country is virtually uninhabited.


You do know suburban office parks are a thing right? In fact the highest income city in the whole US (San Jose) is filled with them. Many of the most successful companies in the US are headquartered in suburban office parks.

Most of those companies in between SF and SJ are relocating huge segments of their operations to either downtown SJ (Google) or Downtown SF (Facebook) to capture the workforce they want. Apple's Norman Foster spaceship is an urban nightmare, but it has already spawned one major makeover of a Cupertino mall into high-density housing.

Price-pressure and demand are profoundly remaking vast segments of the suburban environment in the Bay Area.

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Do you have a source? Or is this your opinion?
Here's a list of Fortune 500 companies and their locations:
https://www.geolounge.com/fortune-50...tate-for-2015/

Walmart, Exxon, Chevron, BerkshireHathaway, Apple, Phillips66, General Electric, McKesson [sold it's SF headquarters directly because of insane rents], Valero, United Health Group, AmeriSourceBergen, CostCo, HP, IBM, Marathon, Cardinal Health, Microsoft, HomeDepot, Archer Daniels Midland, Walgreens, Johnson & Johnson, Google, State Farm, FreddieMac, PepsiCo, United Technologies, UPS, Dow Chemical, Aetna, Lowes and so on...are all in suburban locations, and some fancy downtown tower.




Sprawl is here to stay. Suburban growth is here to stay. We have 330 million people today and will have over 400 million in a couple decades. 70 million people are going to have to find a place to live and it probably won't be in a downtown. -- In total, the top 50 cities in America have a combined population of 50 million and that includes suburban/urban boomburgs like Mesa, Arlington, Long Beach. 70 million more people and we will likely see continued suburban residential, commercial, industrial growth.

Exxon could have built in downtown Houston, but they chose not to for their best interests, just like many other companies have chosen not to build some fancy new tower in some downtown.

McKesson didn't sell it's building because of insane rents. It owned the damn building. It sold it to get a return on capital. It turned around and leased all the space back. McKesson's CEO lives in Pacific Heights, he's not going to change a 15 minute commute for an hour-plus commute.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by coyotetrickster

Price-pressure and demand are profoundly remaking vast segments of the suburban environment in the Bay Area.

Yes, but these factors aren't making such areas more urban. Cupertino and the like are as sprawly and auto-oriented as 20-30 years ago. There's no reason to think that the near-term future will be different.

[llamaorama]

Just because "sprawl is here to stay"(sunbelt's words) does not mean that this is a universal preference for all people nor it is desirable for communities over the long term to remain in that state or something we want to actively promote through taxpayer subsidized public efforts. I say that not as an "elitist" or a "ideologue" but as an ordinary citizen who lives in a suburb himself.

Only an idiot would think public investment in a mall in the year 2018 is a good idea. People buy goods and services online. But they still eat out, see the dentist, get their hair cut, and get assigned jury duty. Neighborhood centers and downtowns are superior to malls for hosting these kinds of services IMO.

A mall is a single large structure that is expensive to maintain and to heat and cool and is under centralized ownership. Malls are vulnerable to failure if they lose even one major store or attraction, because when foot traffic falls other retailers also pull out leading to a death spiral.

In a downtown, an individual building can be more easily renovated into office or residential space or simply demolished without affecting a nearby building. City center infrastructure is also more cost effective. There are more taxpaying properties, households, and customers per length of roadway, sewer pipe, etc.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yes, but these factors aren't making such areas more urban. Cupertino and the like are as sprawly and auto-oriented as 20-30 years ago. There's no reason to think that the near-term future will be different.

Isn't this a consequence of entrenched NIMBY interests rather than either market demand or general public preference?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Again, some companies locate their headquarters in a downtown, many do not. What works for some, doesn't work for others. Since you're from Boston, you know how many businesses are not in downtown Boston and you're aware of the 128 corridor.





Take note of all of the non-downtown/suburban locations of Fortune 1000 companies.

Companies may liked to build suburban corporate campuses - I'd argue they are going out of style - but suburbs don't do a great job of... creating jobs. Industries are created in cities. And when they are not created in cities, they are usually created around some intrinsic feature of the region (i.e. Stanford in Silicon Valley, oil in Houston).

Today it's the back office and mid-office work that is being pushed to suburban office parks. The high-skilled positions tend to go in the desirable real estate.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

On 295 in DC people ALL good the speed limit because there are speed cameras. I generally am against them, but I think for LSD, at least in the most populated areas, they would do some good(for peds and the city).

how is this even legal? because its DC without a state constitution?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Isn't this a consequence of entrenched NIMBY interests rather than either market demand or general public preference?

Probably a bit of both. I mean, "NIMBY interests" is another way to say public opinion.

I doubt most Cupertino residents desire urbanity. If they did, they probably wouldn't live there and pay $2 million for crapboxes that would go for 200k in a "normal" town.

[llamaorama]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Probably a bit of both. I mean, "NIMBY interests" is another way to say public opinion.

I doubt most Cupertino residents desire urbanity. If they did, they probably wouldn't live there and pay $2 million for crapboxes that would go for 200k in a "normal" town.

I bet only a minority vote in local elections. Also, Cupertino is not in a bubble. There are probably a lot of people who work there or shop there who would also live there if the local government was not so tyrannical.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Just because "sprawl is here to stay"(sunbelt's words) does not mean that this is a universal preference for all people nor it is desirable for communities over the long term to remain in that state or something we want to actively promote through taxpayer subsidized public efforts. I say that not as an "elitist" or a "ideologue" but as an ordinary citizen who lives in a suburb himself.

Only an idiot would think public investment in a mall in the year 2018 is a good idea. People buy goods and services online. But they still eat out, see the dentist, get their hair cut, and get assigned jury duty. Neighborhood centers and downtowns are superior to malls for hosting these kinds of services IMO.

A mall is a single large structure that is expensive to maintain and to heat and cool and is under centralized ownership. Malls are vulnerable to failure if they lose even one major store or attraction, because when foot traffic falls other retailers also pull out leading to a death spiral.

In a downtown, an individual building can be more easily renovated into office or residential space or simply demolished without affecting a nearby building. City center infrastructure is also more cost effective. There are more taxpaying properties, households, and customers per length of roadway, sewer pipe, etc.



Isn't this a consequence of entrenched NIMBY interests rather than either market demand or general public preference?

The interesting thing about my downtown is a mall anchors the whole thing. Sure, we have plenty of bars, restaurants, services, the water, festivals etc etc but the mall holds it all together by being smack dab in the middle. If the mall fails and the land isnt developed immediately(and nicely developed), downtown Norfolk will be in a world of hurt.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

how is this even legal? because its DC without a state constitution?

https://mpdc.dc.gov/page/automated-s...nforcement-faq

I don't know how its legal...or anything lol I just know they have em.

But, I do know when im on 295 and you see the cameras...EVERYONE besides a chump or two are slowing down and going under the speed limit.

[llamaorama]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

The interesting thing about my downtown is a mall anchors the whole thing. Sure, we have plenty of bars, restaurants, services, the water, festivals etc etc but the mall holds it all together by being smack dab in the middle. If the mall fails and the land isnt developed immediately(and nicely developed), downtown Norfolk will be in a world of hurt.

Norfolk and San Antonio and maybe Anchorage are the only mid-sized cities I know of that have healthy downtown malls.From what I understand they were failures in almost all smaller and medium sized cities. Why would you go all the way downtown and pay to park to shop in a mall when the same exact stores exist in the suburbs. Naturally the biggest and most urbane cities like SF and Chicago have numerous vertical malls like Water Tower Place or Crocker Galleria but those are outgrowths of thriving, highly trafficked flagship retail areas like Michigan Avenue or Union Square and were not built to try to save a dying downtown.

Off the top of my head, Cities that had downtown malls that didn't work out:

Demolished:

Columbus, OH
Columbus, IN
San Bernardino
Green Bay
Stevens Point, WI
Fort Worth(the Tandy Center even had a "subway" but alas it is no more)

Mostly vacant, facing steep decline, or converted to other uses:

Buffalo
Denver(Tabor Center 2nd floor was empty when I was there)
Milwaukee
Houston(Green Street only has a couple big stores like Forever 21, it never took off)

De-malled into open air center:

Redding, CA

Status unknown, online search suggests not doing so hot:

Cincinnatti
Moorhead, MN
Oshkosh, WI(I don't actually know what that brutalist monster is, but it ate downtown)

There are probably more but I would need to spend some time Googling them. But my point stands, in the US the concept of publicly accommodating an urban-format mall to revive a troubled small city ended up being one of the greatest failed planning trends of all time

[edale]

^ Cincinnati's downtown mall was converted to a parking garage a couple years back.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Norfolk and San Antonio and maybe Anchorage are the only mid-sized cities I know of that have healthy downtown malls.From what I understand they were failures in almost all smaller and medium sized cities. Why would you go all the way downtown and pay to park to shop in a mall when the same exact stores exist in the suburbs. Naturally the biggest and most urbane cities like SF and Chicago have numerous vertical malls like Water Tower Place or Crocker Galleria but those are outgrowths of thriving, highly trafficked flagship retail areas like Michigan Avenue or Union Square and were not built to try to save a dying downtown.

Off the top of my head, Cities that had downtown malls that didn't work out:

Demolished:

Columbus, OH
Columbus, IN
San Bernardino
Green Bay
Stevens Point, WI
Fort Worth(the Tandy Center even had a "subway" but alas it is no more)

Mostly vacant, facing steep decline, or converted to other uses:

Buffalo
Denver(Tabor Center 2nd floor was empty when I was there)
Milwaukee
Houston(Green Street only has a couple big stores like Forever 21, it never took off)

De-malled into open air center:

Redding, CA

Status unknown, online search suggests not doing so hot:

Cincinnatti
Moorhead, MN
Oshkosh, WI(I don't actually know what that brutalist monster is, but it ate downtown)

There are probably more but I would need to spend some time Googling them.

Why drive downtown and pay to park to shop at the same stores as a suburban mall....great question, really. I think our mall has tried to brand it as having more unique stores to our metro than our other large mall. Besides that, I don't know really.

I will say our mall is frequented by residents of downtown more often than one would think. Its also about to build some apartments that are connected to it on a vacant piece of land. I just went there yesterday to get a belt from Mens Wearhouse...and when me and the wife are wanting fast food...we go to the food court. It actually has some uses since our downtown has very little in the way of retail. Of course, one could say having a mall downtown is the reason we have very little retail, but who knows.

In any case, if the mall dies, Norfolk would have to think quick.

And I've lived in SA before, I think their mall survives because of tourists.

[llamaorama]

Originally Posted by edale

^ Cincinnati's downtown mall was converted to a parking garage a couple years back.

Thanks for the info.

I also just remembered that Sacramento had a downtown mall that is now where their new arena sits.

[SIGSEGV]

I've been to the Anchorage Mall. It's... ok, but the downtown is pretty short on other retail from what I could tell walking around.

Water Tower Place is doing alright in Chicago, but Block 37 (which is downtown downtown) isn't fully leased (although they have some very quality spots, like Magnolia). Roosevelt Collection (not quite downtown) is having trouble keeping restaurants open there as far as I can tell, but the mall seems relatively well trafficked.

[Doady]

The death of malls is due to the death of department stores. Malls need anchor tenants and that means department stores. Many malls are dying in the suburbs as well, replaced with power centres and big box.