Will the Death of Malls Save the Suburbs?

[C.]

Will the Death of Malls Save the Suburbs?
By Clare Trapasso
October 6, 2016

Is there anything more distinctly American than spending an afternoon in a sprawling suburban mall? Ah, the memories. Fighting fellow consumers for the last marked-down summer blouse at J.C. Penney. Dodging hordes of loitering/cruising teens and tweens. Justifying the intake of a 1,080-calorie Cinnabon Caramel Pecanbon because you’ve been “walking for miles and miles.”

Just as the incursion of Levittown-style suburban developments helped define the U.S. in the years after World War II, so too did the invasion of the massive, enclosed mall in the ’70s, ’80s, and ’90s.

But now this somewhat beloved and utterly iconic American institution—forever immortalized by teen classics like “Fast Times at Ridgemont High,” “Mallrats,” and “Clueless”—is in danger of becoming an endangered species. The primary culprit: digital technology. Just as the internet relegated the compact disc, snail mail, travel agents, and daily newspapers (sniff) to the dustbin of history, it’s also having a devastating impact on brick-and-mortar retailers. More and more shoppers are deciding to skip the traffic, ditch the lines, take a pass on Black Friday mob scenes, and do it all online instead.

The sea change has already begun. Foot traffic in most of the nation’s largest malls is dropping. Mall mainstays like Aeropostale, Wet Seal, and Pacific Sunwear of California have filed for bankruptcy. And more and more enclosed shopping centers, once vibrant hubs of their communities, have gone entirely dark.

That leaves these towns and small cities in a pickle: What do they do with these empty, hulking 600,000- to 1.2 million-square-foot shrines to consumer culture? What will happen to the property values in towns once defined by their malls?

How is the decline of the mall going to affect American life itself?

Some municipalities are finding that these dead shopping meccas present a unique opportunity to reinvent—and reinvigorate—their sleepy suburban landscapes. The centers are being transformed into public parks, medical complexes, even hockey rinks. In some cases they’re even being rethought as walkable “urban developments in the suburbs” which include funky boutiques, innovative restaurants, fitness centers, entertainment, and, yes, housing.

http://www.realtor.com/news/trends/w...ve-the-suburbs

[llamaorama]

Reusing dead malls is a subject I find really fascinating. In Austin, the former Highland Mall is now a community college.

Malls can be interesting buildings, even if people nowadays don't really appreciate them. Anchor stores occasionally had distinctive architecture, as did some of the large common areas such as food courts. Some malls which are still around have a reputation for being interesting to visit just to take in some of the midcentury atmosphere- North Park in Dallas comes to mind. In the old days it was also acceptable to have nonconformist lighting too- spaces could be kind of dark or bright or whatever, there could be bold colors too.

It depends on the era and age of the building. Some mall buildings look and feel cheap, just single-level metal and concrete warehouse structures with a veneer of 1990's stucco. But others will have cool brick arches and skylights and other gloriously 'retro' features and will have multilevel plazas and all sorts of funky spaces.

I know it violates every rule of proper urban planning and proper architecture to not curse with every breath features such as these, but screw it.

Ever since I was a small child I have had a fascination with eclectic spaces. Architecture today is so conservative about spaces. Buildings look cool on the outside but they are the same on the inside these days. Buildings from 40 years ago are the reverse, they look like ass on the outside but can be interesting if you venture inside. If I see a flight of stairs I have to go up them to see where they go. I realize that in real world conditions, customers won't visit upper level stores and diluting foot traffic with skywalks or plazas is a great way to kill a downtown and create secluded hangouts for rapists and muggers. And that places like Carousel Center in San Bernardino or what's left of downtown Moorhead, MN are like the Edsel or the Galaxy 7 Note of urban planning failures. But.... spaces like that are cool..

One of my armchair planning/archtecture fantasies would be a successful civic center(combine city hall, library, a community college branch) adjoining a public market carved out of a former mall. Most of the former sea of parking would become a park. I would install a lot of public art pieces and try to rescue some retro neon/lighted signs belonging to former local businesses.

In Orlando there is something called Artagon, which is a dead mall converted into a kind of art market...thing...I can't describe it. It's weird. But its cool.

[the urban politician]

^ I wonder if in 20 years people will view malls with the same fascination that they did with center cities 20-30 years ago? A lot of malls will close and perhaps they will be a source of historic interest or curiosity for future generations.

I will say that the malls that are surviving are doing well. This tends to be in more affluent areas. This is akin to city neighborhoods that survived the worst eras of suburbanization, such as many parts of New York, much of the north side of Chicago, etc etc

[llamaorama]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I wonder if in 20 years people will view malls with the same fascination that they did with center cities 20-30 years ago? A lot of malls will close and perhaps they will be a source of historic interest or curiosity for future generations.

I will say that the malls that are surviving are doing well. This tends to be in more affluent areas. This is akin to city neighborhoods that survived the worst eras of suburbanization, such as many parts of New York, much of the north side of Chicago, etc etc

Maybe...

A big difference between malls and main streets is that malls are typically private establishments with a single owner who just sees it as an asset to be replaced or razed into a vacant lot at any time. A main street is a public space and as such engenders a kind of civic pride and local governments will feel like they should try to save it with public funds. That can't really be done in a prudent way with a mall unless the city is going to use it for lots of things.

But I do agree that in the future maybe suburbs that have healthy and vibrant commercial areas full of small businesses will be fascinating and attractive to people who have become disillusioned with gentrified city centers with their homogenous tracts of new condos with empty ground floors or 20 different Chipotle and Starbucks locations and nothing else.

[ChargerCarl]

Urban malls are pretty popular in Asia.

[Doady]

Due to the death of department stores, malls have lost their anchor tenants, and thus they are themselves dying off and being replaced by big box/power centres, which even more sprawling and car-oriented.

So, no, the death of malls won't save the suburbs. The death of malls and rise of power centres has only done the opposite, and made it more difficult for suburbanites to walk around.

[Minato Ku]

I don't think mall per se will die.
I think that the US has too many malls. Many will close but many other will remain or will be replaced by newer malls in other location.

The main problem in the United State is the lack of "value" of land in people's mindset.
Outside city core, investors and autorities are more likely to build new infrastructure further in periphery that improving or rebuilding those already existing in older suburbs.
This is changing.

[chris08876]

The suburbs are here to stay, but what we will see are almost like bandaids on the existing infrastructure and housing. You might see some town homes or mid rises per say rising, and in those structures, some retail that aims to bring a urban like shopping experience, but it will still be a mishmash of the old and new.

I think whats even more damaging then malls are office blocks. Those lackluster, giant sq-ft structures that are usually 2-3 floors, and span acres. Those really kill cities in terms of bringing in new tenants as competition will flock towards cheaper sqft/$ and people will see the suburbs as a place to work and play, instead of flocking to the nearest urban core.

Suburbs will not go away, but what we will see are attempts to improve them. Almost like a pseudo-urban experience. Build on the existing infrastructure. But that in itself presents challenges, especially with the roads. Some high ways in NJ for example are parking lots nowadays. They just can't support all of the new people, and the traffic is insane. I-287 for example or route 1-9.

[Minato Ku]

Right. Suburbs are here to stay.
The urban development in the US can't be restricted to condo in downtowns and sprawl newer exurbs.
The real challenge of urban america is how to improve and densify the existing older suburbs.

America can't act anymore as a place where land can be wasted.

Originally Posted by chris08876

Build on the existing infrastructure. But that in itself presents challenges, especially with the roads. Some high ways in NJ for example are parking lots nowadays. They just can't support all of the new people, and the traffic is insane. I-287 for example or route 1-9.

The only thing I can say is that building further away does not solve this issue. It's rather the opposite.
Not only this increases pressure on existing infrastructure but increases even more the need for new infrastructures (people commute from further away).

Increasing the density in older suburbs may reduce the distance between employment, housing and shopping.
It may increase the attractiveness and reliability of public transports. It could increase walking.

Obviously the idea of walking to work is quite utopian and unrealistic for the majority of people but what about walking to stores, walking to school?
Why should they need a car to buy some food?

This is not an easy challenge but building good and well functioning cities is not easy task and nobody has the right answer.
In my opinion there is no single answer or quick fix, it's a multitude of many factors which also depend on the location.

[LSyd]

watched this a few weeks ago. it shows a mall that's become church space.

• Video Link

-

[ThePhun1]

Church space is very common for many malls.

[Jonesy55]

It's the opposite here, disused and abandoned churches get converted into restaurants, bars, stores, markets, apartments, community centres etc.

http://www.businessinsider.com/churc...os-2014-3?IR=T

I quite like the look of living in an old church building like this one.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-...-55959286.html

[Minato Ku]

Same in France.

[barney82]

Originally Posted by Doady

Due to the death of department stores, malls have lost their anchor tenants, and thus they are themselves dying off and being replaced by big box/power centres, which even more sprawling and car-oriented.

So, no, the death of malls won't save the suburbs. The death of malls and rise of power centres has only done the opposite, and made it more difficult for suburbanites to walk around.

Exactly. Malls are the next best thing to real cities for walking and people watching. First they were gradually replaced by strip malls, and now by online shopping, making suburbs even more isolating than before.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Church space is very common for many malls.

In Texas I'm sure that's the case.

Re. topic:
The economic and social forces that fueled and sustained sub-urban malls and to a less extent the suburbs has changed but I don't think either are going away any time soon. But the glory days of the suburb are definitely behind us. There's opportunities to recreate the old mall into something resembling "downtown" but it's still going to be located in the middle of a low-density, car-dependent suburban environment.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

It's the opposite here, disused and abandoned churches get converted into restaurants, bars, stores, markets, apartments, community centres etc.

http://www.businessinsider.com/churc...os-2014-3?IR=T

I quite like the look of living in an old church building like this one.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-...-55959286.html

the opposite of what? churches get converted to all those things across the usa as well. in fact i almost bought a very cute old suburban downtown church myself to live in at one point.

[Minato Ku]

Boissy 2, a dying shopping mall which opened in 1976 in southeastern suburbs of Paris.
This 27,000m² or 290,000 sq ft mall is only working thanks to the anchor, a supermarket. The other shops are either vacant or cheap ethnic stores.
In 2015, only 22 of the 61 retail spaces were filled.

Local autorities decided to replace it with a mixed-use district.

- 46,500 m² or 500,500 sq ft of housing space (650 apartments)
- 4,700 m² or 50,600 sq ft of retail space. Including a 3000 m² or 32,300 sq ft supermarket and shops on ground floor of buildings.
- 2,900 m² or 31,200 sq ft of business space (?)
- Underground parking.





One of the main criticism about this redevelopment is the drastic reduction of commercial space.
The current supermarket inside the shopping mall is 5,940 m² or 63,900 sq ft, it's more than all the retail space planned in this project.

[ue]

Enclosed malls are interesting. They're definitely an archetype of the iconic postwar American project and I can see them having a "resurgence" as an earlier poster mentioned. I used to really hate malls, but I've come around to them. Although many are poorly designed, especially from the outside, they do have the potential to be inviting spaces of an urban or suburban realm, even without a car. They're also a vast improvement from the drive from store to store environment of the power centre.

I think the idea of the mall "dying" is a bit premature, depending on where you live. Especially in the US, it seems as though there is over-malling and over-retailing in general, which means with the highly disposable culture of North America, once the new shopping centre is built, often times people abandon the older. But the concept of the mall is not entirely dead -- I've witnessed many shopping malls in the US that are thriving and lucrative spaces. It's the same thing in Canada, which has only seen a trickle of new malls built compared to the late 20th century. Malls are also very popular and still being built in large quantities in East Asia, the Middle East, South Africa, and Oceania.

What we are now seeing, I think, is a transition from what the mall is towards what the mall will be. Before, malls were built everywhere to service things at the neighbourhood scale, which has now been overtaken by power centres. The malls that continue to thrive are thriving as regional centres that draw from a much wider geographic area. Not every neighbourhood can support a Victoria's Secret, but certainly every quadrant, borough, arrondissement, or the like can.

EDIT: General question for Americans... how popular are department stores like JCPenney, Macy's, and Bloomingdales still? I understand Sears is pretty much dead, but Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus are quite popular.

[Jonesy55]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

the opposite of what?

The opposite of the malls being turned into church space thing that was described in the post I quoted.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by ozone

In Texas I'm sure that's the case.

Re. topic:
The economic and social forces that fueled and sustained sub-urban malls and to a less extent the suburbs has changed but I don't think either are going away any time soon. But the glory days of the suburb are definitely behind us. There's opportunities to recreate the old mall into something resembling "downtown" but it's still going to be located in the middle of a low-density, car-dependent suburban environment.

FTR, I meant abandoned or mostly abandoned malls.