4 ms·

You get it. We need to fix a lot of American mass transit infrastructure though to make this feasible. Getting into the city is not easy or cheap in many places

You get it. We need to fix a lot of American mass transit infrastructure though to make this feasible. Getting into the city is not easy or cheap in many places in the United States. And we cannot just rely on the cheap trick of using parking garages and highways to get people into the city anymore - that's part of what killed cities in the first place.

6cxs2hd6 13y ago
I agree, and I'm definitely thinking of larger cities, in part. I'm also thinking of smaller towns. People may drive there, park, then walk around and enjoy it -- and spend money. There are towns like this around New England, for example. They're destinations people want to visit or live in. If instead the town had a Wal-Mart, it wouldn't be the same economic benefit to the town. Who would visit for that? Of course even better if there were rail service to the town. I'm not disagreeing with you, there. I'm just pointing out that this isn't only an urbanista issue. I think it matters as much, maybe even more so, for smaller cities and towns.
ams6110 13y ago
Mass transit is OK for commuters who can tolerate the homeless-shelter-on-wheels aspect of it, but not good for shoppers, since it limits your per-trip purchases to what you can carry.
- chrismonsanto 13y ago
  In Kentucky (and probably the midwest in general), mass transit effectively does not exist.
  - ams6110 13y ago
    I'm in the midwest and I agree. You need a certain critical mass of population density and enough common destinations for mass transit to work. From what I can tell, this is a lot higher than the population needed to sustain a mall. Our town does have a bus system but most of them drive around empty or nearly so most of the time. We also have a decent indoor mall and several outdoor "big box store" shopping centers which all seem to be surviving if not thriving.
- meddlepal 13y ago
  Stores should offer purchase and deliver. Basically we should begin to treat stores as showrooms.

6cxs2hd6 13y ago

I agree, and I'm definitely thinking of larger cities, in part. I'm also thinking of smaller towns. People may drive there, park, then walk around and enjoy it -- and spend money. There are towns like this around New England, for example. They're destinations people want to visit or live in. If instead the town had a Wal-Mart, it wouldn't be the same economic benefit to the town. Who would visit for that? Of course even better if there were rail service to the town. I'm not disagreeing with you, there. I'm just pointing out that this isn't only an urbanista issue. I think it matters as much, maybe even more so, for smaller cities and towns.

ams6110 13y ago

Mass transit is OK for commuters who can tolerate the homeless-shelter-on-wheels aspect of it, but not good for shoppers, since it limits your per-trip purchases to what you can carry.

chrismonsanto 13y ago
In Kentucky (and probably the midwest in general), mass transit effectively does not exist.
- ams6110 13y ago
  I'm in the midwest and I agree. You need a certain critical mass of population density and enough common destinations for mass transit to work. From what I can tell, this is a lot higher than the population needed to sustain a mall. Our town does have a bus system but most of them drive around empty or nearly so most of the time. We also have a decent indoor mall and several outdoor "big box store" shopping centers which all seem to be surviving if not thriving.
meddlepal 13y ago
Stores should offer purchase and deliver. Basically we should begin to treat stores as showrooms.