Downtown vs. Mall

[KentXie]

I decided to take riffgo's suggestion and open a new thread on this topic.

Then perhaps we need a new thread: Downtowns vs. malls. You'll never know what you've destroyed over time by preferring malls to downtowns. Malls are so anti-urban, and they give you far fewer options that downtowns once did. I see their controlled environments as faulty and decadent, prohibitive of choices that veer from the numbing sameness of chains.

First, I'm going to ask what is there to destroy by preferring to malls over downtowns? Is it the loss of business that downtown will incur as shoppers are drawn away to malls? Well then, here are the reasons imo as to why this happens. One, unlike what you stated as "giving you a fewer options that downtown once did," the reason why malls are so attractive is because they give you a higher variety. I'm going to use CambridgeSide as an example because of its close proximity to Boston and how successful of the mall. Other malls sucks (besides SSP and Wrentham). Does downtown Boston have several varieties of department store? No, if you haven't notice, the main department stores of DTX (Macy, H&M, TJ Max, Marshalls) are all clothing department stores. The only exception to this is Borders which is tucked away from the main area of DTX. Compare this to Sears, Best Buy, Macy, Old Navy, Foot Locker, H&M, and Borders down at CSG which sells clothes, shoes, electronic, home appliances, and books. DTX lacks popular stores such as Gamestop, the Apple Store, American Eagle, Abercombie & Fitch, Hollister, and Victoria Secrets. DTX also lacks a clean and spacious food court. The Corner Mall is nothing compared to the food court at the CSG. The lack of homeless people begging on the street is also a plus.

Yes maybe the majority of the stores (if not all) are chains but there is a reason why it is a chain. It's because they have proven to us, the consumer, that their products are reliable and for most of the time, worth the cost. But as I said before, the reasons mentioned above may not be preferred by all people (such as riffgo who prefer a more realistic city experience which I agree to many are very appealing) but the fact that people are naturally drawn to malls is shocking and appalling is ridiculous. Many people enjoy the reasons I have explained above and thus choose the mall over places like DTX.

One more thing, when comparing to places Newbury Street and CSG, the reason why CSG may be preferred is because CSG is what we would consider a place with cheaper goods which appeals to the majority of the population as a fewer amount of people are wealthy enough to afford those products and food served at Newbury Street.

 

[czsz]

The premise of this thread is unnecessary. Malls and outdoor shopping streets are often complementary. There are half a dozen on Ste-Catherine Street in Montreal, and the Back Bay malls do little to detract from Newbury/Bolyston - in fact, they may enhance their draw.

When shoppers actually do decide between the two, preferences are clearly called into question and the choice is rarely clear-cut. Shoppers might choose a shopping street because it affords access to particular goods more easily (because it's more directly on a transit line, say, or is walking distance from where they live), or because they prefer the vitality of street life and can wait to shop on fair weather days. Most street shoppers also tend to buy in small quantities anyway, so the issue of variety doesn't really come into play - although these streets also tend to offer a better selection of specialty retailers alongside the usual chains. In fact, variety can sometimes be a stumbling block. If a shopper wants to intently compare price and selection at numerous jewelry stores, it might be better to do so in the highly competitive Jewelry District than at a mall where one's only choices are Zales and Reed's (although this setup does tend to work better in markets where haggling is more commonplace).

 

[kennedy]

The only reason malls exist is because people who live in suburbia are too lazy to travel into the cities to get their shopping done. Developers took advantage, and built malls. There are two solutions:

1. Make surburbia more urban.

2. Make suburbanites move into cities.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

Yeah, that grossly generalizes and demeans a whole lot of people, so I'll just say while I don't like suburbia the mall does fill the role of a "main st". They aren't lazy, they just live in an auto dependent reality and the Mall filled the economic need.

 

[kennedy]

I know what I'm thinking...but I simply can't see, write, or think straight at the moment. I'll leave it at this-I mean auto-dependent by lazy.

Check out my portfolio photos if you get a chance. They're in the General section.

 

[KentXie]

The only reason malls exist is because people who live in suburbia are too lazy to travel into the cities to get their shopping done. Developers took advantage, and built malls. There are two solutions:

1. Make surburbia more urban.

2. Make suburbanites move into cities.

Those are not necessarily correct and there are exceptions. As said before, CambridgeSide is located in Cambridge, hardly a suburb and well in close proximity to downtown Boston.

 

[KentXie]

The premise of this thread is unnecessary. Malls and outdoor shopping streets are often complementary. There are half a dozen on Ste-Catherine Street in Montreal, and the Back Bay malls do little to detract from Newbury/Bolyston - in fact, they may enhance their draw.

The purpose of this thread is not to say whether or not they steal from shopping districts ( it is created to discuss that it is not shocking nor appalling that people gravitate towards the mall. It is to discuss that it is not a bad thing to have a "mall mentality" which riffgo was insinuating. The second part of your post is exactly what I'm trying to say. That it all comes down to preference and there are no negative impact (again I agree to what you stated) which riffgo said there was and I assume it may be competition.

 

[kennedy]

It isn't about preference, its about convenience. Malls filled a void in people's lives, when they didn't live in an urban area, they still needed somewhere to shop-developers gave them just that, a suburban 'main street' as van put it. The main problem I have with malls, and what I assume most of those on this board have, is that a mall has no architectural or urban value. That is why all (most) of us prefer cities with shopping districts, that promote a changing streetscape, and have significant architectural value-to a giant boxed up mall.

Now, the trend for developers is to create malls that feel more and more like a city shopping district, to give people the convenience of feeling like they are in a city, when really they're in Danvers or Framingham or Burlington. They build new 'lifestyle centers,' which are little more than taking all of the conveniences and features of a city, and building them on a plot of land in suburbia. It's all about filling the void that exists because of the suburban trend, opposed to in a city where the void hardly exists because of urban growth.

Then theres your exceptions-CSG and Copley. The mall proved to be a viable and efficient economic option, and therefore developers built those in the cities, too. They go right along with the stubbornness we complain about developers having about building small, varied developments-they make more money with a mega development. The rift is over the attractiveness of a shopping district, and the streetlife they encourage-versus the economic value of a mega-mall smack in the middle of a city.

Oh, and the weather in Boston sucks during winter, so people would much rather shop indoors during December than outdoors.

 

[garbribre]

Okay. Then explain Patriot Place to me.

This is what you will see as you enter anywhere along Route 1.
Vile.
The entire Place is currently turned inward.
After all these years, you'd think planners of malls would have learned by now.
Granted, I haven't seen the full site plan. Future use for the parking lots fronting Route 1 may cover these blank walls and eliminate this type of view.

Guess they need to convince us by telling us this every few empty storefronts.

My sister asked a few merchants how they were doing. They claimed it was 'amazing!' business ... so far.

Though I must admit, I did enjoy myself at Bass. Makes me want to buy a rifle and hunt ... something ... town planners, maybe.

 

[kennedy]

Explain what...the simple reason for why Patriot Place was built? Kraft capitalized on the vacuum of space he had, decided to build a mall, and it was designed under the current design precedent-giving suburbanites as close to a downtown as they possibly can, while still being in suburbia next to a highway and a forest.

 

[Ron Newman]

That photo doesn't look much like a downtown, faux or otherwise.

 

[kz1000ps]

garbribre, here's the site plan:

As for your other comments, obviously the only thing that's changed in mall/retail planning in half a century is the return to open-air corridors. As for retail perhaps getting built on Route 1 and blocking ugly views, it seems too logical (or perhaps idealistic?) of an idea for it to ever happen.

 

[riffgo]

I don't think it's possible to compare what we have left of downtowns to today's shopping malls or other contrived agglomerations for shopping. Today's downtown retail districts are a far cry from what they once were, and even the largest regional shopping malls cannot possible compete with what we once had.

Consider that at one time Bromfield Street contained EIGHT camera stores. Temple Place had a plethora of shoe stores, and West Street had furriers...not to mention that there existed simultaneously all manner of department stores: Jordan Marsh (billed itself as having the world's largest toy store), Filene's, Gilchrist's, C. Crawford Hollidge, R. H. Stearn's, R. H. White's, Raymond's, Conrad & Chandler, City Mart, and others. There were also all kinds of "dime stores" (three Woolworth's, Grants, Kresge's, Newberry's, etc.) The mix was truly heady, and the likes of which we never see today anywhere.