Urban Wal-Marts considered in New York and DC

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ holy shit! THAT'S a walmart?

they have only built their standard shitacular suburban big box model with a galaxy of surface parking out front here in the far flung fringe neighborhoods of chicago. if they can actually prove to make a real deal effort to embrace how real cities operate, that could be a game-changer for them. i'm pleased and terrified at the same time.

The bungalow belt of Chicago doesn't have anywhere near the physical density of those DC neighborhoods, though.

More significantly, DC doesn't have vast brownfield sites, since it never had the industrial presence of Chicago. These sites are abandoned, unsightly, gigantic, off the tax rolls, wasteful in an urban context, and often harmful to the health of surrounding neighborhoods. The city has a huge incentive to accept any development willing to pay the costs of remediation, even if that development is something plucked straight from a sprawlburg like Huntley.

When Wal-Mart starts to open up on the north side, where very few brownfields remain undeveloped, we'll see if they can produce something similar to these DC projects. They'll pretty much have to get more urban-friendly, or they could simply open up shop in the Elston corridor that's already a suburban shithole.

[TexasBoi]

Man. Why can't the proposed one in Houston's inner loop look like that one in DC. People are not happy about this suburban model going into the Heights in Houston.
http://www.neohouston.com/2010/09/re...t-development/

[Hayward]

Originally Posted by ardecila

The bungalow belt of Chicago doesn't have anywhere near the physical density of those DC neighborhoods, though.

More significantly, DC doesn't have vast brownfield sites, since it never had the industrial presence of Chicago. These sites are abandoned, unsightly, gigantic, off the tax rolls, wasteful in an urban context, and often harmful to the health of surrounding neighborhoods. The city has a huge incentive to accept any development willing to pay the costs of remediation, even if that development is something plucked straight from a sprawlburg like Huntley.

When Wal-Mart starts to open up on the north side, where very few brownfields remain undeveloped, we'll see if they can produce something similar to these DC projects. They'll pretty much have to get more urban-friendly, or they could simply open up shop in the Elston corridor that's already a suburban shithole.

I've been under the impression though the ones in Chicago would be relatively small. Probably not much bigger than a CVS or Walgreens. It's probably a safe bet they won't even have parking (at least on the northside)

[hammersklavier]

Wow, I wish a Walmart like the one on H Street would come here to Philly, instead of expanding the already craptastic Pier 70 store...

[J. Will]

The closest Walmart to downtown Toronto is about 1 mile west at Dufferin Mall. Dufferin Mall does have some surface parking, but the parking covers far less square footage than the mall itself. It's a dense, urban area with a 24-hour bus route that stops right at the main entrance, and subway and streetcar lines within a 5-6 minute walk.

[BevoLJ]

Six weeks ago they opened a "Urban Wallmart" here in Austin. It was originally planned to be this massive two story 380,000 sq foot Wallmart with its own parking garage and everything but the neighborhoods fought it for years. It is just a horrible location for such a store, on small streets that could never handle the traffic it would have created plus many small local shops in the area. Anyway after all kind of big hoopla and craziness they agreed to make it a lot smaller. So they just opened what they call an urban wallmart. It is 99k sq feet but designed to accommodated the same number of customers as their > 200k sized stores. Not sure how they do that, or what makes it any different as I haven't been up there.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Hayward

I've been under the impression though the ones in Chicago would be relatively small. Probably not much bigger than a CVS or Walgreens. It's probably a safe bet they won't even have parking (at least on the northside)

I think Wal-Mart's Chicago strategy is to avoid the north side as much as possible. North siders are, to generalize, fairly wealthy and educated, and many willl reject Wal-Mart in an outright way simply because of their reputation.

Neighborhoods on the south and west sides are underserved (read: no effective competitors) and many of the residents there need the savings desperately. The south and west sides also contain plenty of the large brownfield sites where Wal-Mart can build cheaply, in their traditional manner. This is exactly what Home Depot did - except we got a token urban-format store out of that one.

[Mattylite]

I'm not really sure why opening a Walmart in NYC is that big of a deal? Back in the late 90's, and onward, they (NYC) pretty much sold out to all the big retailers in America. If they offer hundreds, if not thousands of minimum wage jobs, is that not better or the same that is already there. Do you think all the Burger Kings and Mcdonalds that plague the landscape in Manhattan offer lots of jobs that earn 50k and above? Don't think so. Most of everyday Manhattan below 110th street is; casual business wise; a mall, that instead of being spread out horizontally like suburbia is spread out vertically. Full of thousands of basic, boring, minimum wage jobs. So in the grand scheme of things, Walmart isn't the scourge everyone thinks it is, because what eveyone thinks is the scourge is really the normal.
th

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I think Wal-Mart's Chicago strategy is to avoid the north side as much as possible. North siders are, to generalize, fairly wealthy and educated, and many willl reject Wal-Mart in an outright way simply because of their reputation.

Neighborhoods on the south and west sides are underserved (read: no effective competitors) and many of the residents there need the savings desperately. The south and west sides also contain plenty of the large brownfield sites where Wal-Mart can build cheaply, in their traditional manner. This is exactly what Home Depot did - except we got a token urban-format store out of that one.

Strangely enough, Walmart's built in South Philly and the Northeast but has ignored North Philly, despite having a vast desperately underserved market up there. I wouldn't mind seeing an urban-format Walmart at, for example, Broad and Indiana.

[Hayward]

Originally Posted by Minato Ku

It remind me the urban hypermarkets in Paris area built since the end of the 1980's.
These buildings are mostly mixed use.
Not only an hypermarket (In France we don't have Walmart but the equivalent like Carrefour Auchan, Cora, Leclerc...) a little mall with an hypermarket and office spaces, hotel.
While impossible in inner Paris, these are quite common in inner suburbs.


Picture by steph35

There's identical places like this in Chicago as well. They strategically locate along transit lines but also have parking garages either underground or on the roof. I've never cared for them. I think they still go against a good street level urban concept. I think these facilities are more appropriate for places like Detroit. Detroit still maintains much of its old urban street grid that would be too difficult to place a Walmart on. Yet, most of its residents still drive everywhere. So creating concentrated big-box retail shopping in a vertical structure would be appropriate.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I think Wal-Mart's Chicago strategy is to avoid the north side as much as possible. North siders are, to generalize, fairly wealthy and educated, and many willl reject Wal-Mart in an outright way simply because of their reputation.

And yet Target always gets a pass. Their businesses practices are more or less identical to Wal Marts, in some instances they are worse. Oh, but they have clever commercials.

[mhays]

Target doesn't push the cheapification/crappification of their products anywhere near the way walmart does, which is a huge driver of walmart sending jobs to other countries, polluting, etc. I don't know how their suppliers do in terms of offshoring, environmental ethics, wages, etc., but it's a good bet they're better than walmart by a wide margin. I haven't heard that Target is anywhere near as viscious in leaving empty former stores dotting the landscape either (kept vacant so nobody else moves in).

[hammersklavier]

In my opinion the worst hypermarket chain in the world is Carrefour. Walmart and Tesco--the two biggest competitors--don't even come close. Not only does Carrefour come with all the problems Walmart does, but it's also been caught out selling goods months past their sell-by dates, and was once caught storing refrigerated and frozen goods in a room-temperature warehouse. Granted, they were caught (thank God for French regulation), but consider they have even more stores worldwide than Walmart--although, thankfully, none here.

U.S. hypermarkets seem to be a pretty tapped-out market. The big national players are Walmart, Target, and Kmart, and there are other local players like Meijer. In Europe, though, there are: Tesco, Asda, Carrefour, E. Leclerc, Auchan, and Real that I know of. Six major players! This mirrors the Northeast U.S. situation in the mid-'90s, when we had Ames, Bradlees, Caldor, and Clover on top of who we have today. I bet that consolidation among this type of retailer in Europe is coming.

[dchan]

^ You forgot Sears.

[Cirrus]

In my mind the chief difference between Target and WalMart is that Target is not responsible for destroying small town America's economy.

In cities and suburbs stores are all pretty much the same, but rural areas are a different ballgame, and Target and WalMart treat rural areas totally different. Target is pretty much absent from them, while WalMart's main business practice is to dominate as much of rural America's economy as possible.

You don't understand WalMart unless you've lived in a town half-way to nowhere that is utterly dependent on WalMart's scraps for everything.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

In my mind the chief difference between Target and WalMart is that Target is not responsible for destroying small town America's economy.

In cities and suburbs stores are all pretty much the same, but rural areas are a different ballgame, and Target and WalMart treat rural areas totally different. Target is pretty much absent from them, while WalMart's main business practice is to dominate as much of rural America's economy as possible.

You don't understand WalMart unless you've lived in a town half-way to nowhere that is utterly dependent on WalMart's scraps for everything.

What, you think Target dosent want rural dollars? For whatever reason, (perception, marketing, politics, early inroads) Wal Mart has succeeded greatly in rural settings, while Target has prospered in more urban. But to suggest its some sort of conscious decision on Targets part not to upset the precious, delicate rural economy is absurd.

Ultimately, the snobbery that exists in both of those consumer segments boils down to narcissism of minor differences. Wal Mart and Target are one in the same. And they both are battling mightly to break into the markets that the other controls. I can assure you that they will both sell foreign cheaply made junk to whoever is willing to buy it from them.

[Cirrus]

We could speculate all day, but whether by choice or accident the fact remains that WalMart is responsible for destroying rural America and Target is not. One is guilty, and the other isn't.

Even if Target wants to take over the rural market, they have thus far failed to do so, which makes them less of a menace.

It is not a minor difference.

Selling cheap crap really has nothing to do with it. Selling the cheapest crap you can get away with has been a hallmark of capitalism since capitalism was invented.

[vid]

Capitalism wasn't invented, it was defined, and getting away with selling cheap crap is an inherent human trait that has always existed and always will.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by dchan

^ You forgot Sears.

Sears and Kmart are one company.

I don't think you can list the companies of Europe and those of the US side-by-side though, because even companies like Carrefour don't extend to some major markets in Europe (UK, for example), where Target, Sears Holding, and Walmart operate in every US state, with other competing retailers like Costco and Kroger (through the hypermarket chains owned like Fred Meyer) in many areas and competing in similar markets. In most individual countries in Europe there isn't much more competition than there is in any one state in the US.

[Cirrus]

Capitalism wasn't invented, it was defined, and getting away with selling cheap crap is an inherent human trait that has always existed and always will.

Exactly. That aspect of WalMart's practices are not new, not particularly different, and not the reason WalMart has a bad name.