3 ms·
It's crazy to me that more malls didn't already include residential spaces. It makes perfect sense to me: bottom couple of floors for shops, and a few floors'
by yellowapple 5y ago
It's crazy to me that more malls didn't already include residential spaces. It makes perfect sense to me: bottom couple of floors for shops, and a few floors' worth of apartments on top. Good for businesses (residents = likely customers), good for residents (far easier to buy stuff when you live above a mall), win/win. Hell, throw in some offices and warehouse/workshop spaces and you've got yourself a little micro-city going.
- epistasis 5y agoI think this speaks to the abject failure of US planning policies. Very few people realize just how highly constrained all land use is. What you propose is, and was, illegal to build. The very good idea of allowing residential next to commercial space was anathema while the suburbs were being built, as was allowing residential buildings that allowed any destinations that one could walk to. We have squandered a massive amount of our land by laying out residential property on winding roads with cul-de-sacs, intentionally blocking the possibility of walkable density ever developing. This century, we are starting to realize that forcing car use for every single trip is really bad for our health and happiness.