Bright Lights, Big Boxes: Suburban Retail Comes to the City

Here's an interesting story out of Cleveland, detailing how Home Depot, Walmart, Old Navy and other national retailers are setting up shop inside city limits on a former LTV Steel site. The Home Depot is opening first, but others will be up and running soon. A Home Depot in the city is nothing new for Pittsburgh, of course. But these kinds of developments raise interesting questions for people who love (and/or feel nostalgia for) "city living."

Economically, big-box retailing would seem to make a lot of sense. Why let the suburbs reap all those property taxes? Moreover, access to the kind of shopping that people seem to prefer these days might keep more people from moving to the 'burbs. And perhaps even convince others to move back into the city. Or at least that's the theory.

The virulent opposition to big box retailing goes beyond economics, of course. People are opposed to Walmart (and Target and Best Buy and Old Navy, etc.) on aesthetic and cultural grounds. "Generic corporate America!" they wail. "What about mom and pop?"

These are important points, actually. Are cities selling their souls by embracing Big Box Mania? Or simply embracing reality? Or is all the hand wringing a bunch of bunk?

My view?

Yes.

Comments

First of all, there are a lot of rational reasons to consider big box retail a poor land use in most urban areas. But first, one has to come up with a definition-- Old Navy does not have a store footprint that is close to big box size. also, a lot of chains like Kmart, Target and Staples have smaller or multifloor versions of their stores that fit in well in a city. ( Home depot put a small store in a classic old building in chelsea ) I think best Buy also has stores that work in cities.

This is very much an issue of specifics. Home Depot sells stuff that requires a large space and competes with places like lumber yards that also have a big footprint.

[Sam M]

Anonymous,

Those are all good points, but I am not sure they apply in Cleveland. The shopping center featured in the articles is, reportedly, of the big-box variety:

"The project also represents several firsts. The 1 million-square-foot, $120 million development will be Cleveland's first big-box shopping center and -- in addition to Wal-Mart -- will bring the first Best Buy, Old Navy and Target stores inside city limits."

Even then, the size of the stores does little to resolve the debate in terms of culture and aesthetics. A lot of people object to Walmart and Target and Best Buy, not only because of their size, but because of what they are NOT: Namely, locally owned stores.

The slam on suburbs often includes a slam against their "cookie-cutter" nature. Their lack of "culture." Their failure as distinct, independent "places." These are places, the critics argue, without a soul. By which they often mean places without a "real downtown."

I think that in most cases, what people mean by a real downtown is a place occupied by local restaurants, local clothing stores, local bars, local electronics shops, etc. The kind of things that make Bloomfield different than Shadyside, Pittsburgh different than Cleveland, New York different than Chicago.

A downtown filled with little Best Buys, little Walmarts, and little Olive Gardens would not address all of said critics' concerns. If any of them at all.

So the question remains: Is it a good thing that the big-boxes are, apparently, migrating from the burbs to the city? Good for whom? And for what reasons?

I just want to slip in the fact that, Cleveland has a bigger area -- 82.4 square miles in the city limits and is does not have significant hills like Pittsburgh.

Also, as far as I know these deals to bring big box retail into cities often involve a lot of subsidies and government land grabs.

Slipping in that all pro urban people are "nastalgic" is really dumb. Dense development, has a long history of paying for itself in many places.

[Sam M]

"Slipping in that all pro urban people are "nastalgic" is really dumb."

Maybe. But not quite as dumb as arguing that I ever said that. Go back to the sentence:

"But these kinds of developments raise interesting questions for people who love (and/or feel nostalgia for) 'city living.'"

I never said "all pro urban people are 'nastalgic.'"

Are you contending, on the other hand, that none of them are? That would be something. Because nostalgia is a common attribute--at times even a useful one--in thinking about how people ought to live.

People who love small towns are often nostalgic about them. People who love Levittown are often nostalgic about it. People who love life on the farm are often nostalgic about it. Seems odd to think that for some reason people who appreciate city living would be immune, or that we should never point it out. Or that anyone who notes any tendency towards nostalgia in anyone is painting everyone with the same brush.

Think about it. People who love cities often talk about density and walkability and diversity and culture and all that stuff. And rightly so. Those are great things. But there is also a downside to all of that. A lack of space. Noise. Crowding. Etc.

Yes, a lot of misguided policies led to the flight from cities. But so did a lot of other things. Some people like having a yard and a garage, for instance. Some people like having a garden. Some people don't like taking an elevator to their front door.

This is all a matter of personal preference. But when I talk to people about cities, the people who really like them often refer to some sort of Golden Era of American cities, when everyone was happy and clean and diverse and just loved walking to the theater arm in arm. And if we just had some density we could all lock arms again.

That is a caricature, of course. But no more of a caricature than the worlds that people build in their minds about "the way things were," whether they are talking about life in Brooklyn or life on the farm.

[John Morris]

Dense development usually results in a mix of both chain and non chain retail mixed together. NY has pretty much all the chain retail listed above all over the place. The main exception is Wall Mart, which to my knowledge has never propsed a store. Pretty much, it's an issue of math.The larger the number of people living near a place or who can reasonably access it-- the higher degree of retail diversity it can support.If people are spread over large areas, then only the common denominator type retail can survive.

Face it, Ceveland kind of sucks and this is the best they can do.

[John Morris]

I think that the implication was that "nastalgia" is the only reason that people are in favor of dense cities. That's nut's and I think that's the way most people would read it. I don't think I would be always bringing up Hong Kong, if I was the retro type. Hong kong, is still a bastion of free markets, so I ain't the commie type either.

[Sam M]

"I think that the implication was that 'nastalgia' is the only reason that people are in favor of dense cities. "

I think you are being pretty defensive. The statement referred to "people who love (and/or feel nostalgia for) 'city living.'" There is an and/or, and it appears parenthetically. Seems that the only way to bring it up without implying that everyone is nostalgic would be to not bring it up at all.

Furthermore, I don't see how you can read the post as saying that nostalgia is the only reason to favor urban living. It mentions economic issues, which identify as a pertinent issue. It mentions cultural issus, which I identify as an "important point." And it mentions aesthetic isses, which I also identify as an important point.

I just don't see how you can read it as saying that anyone who likes cities is a starry-eyed goofball, or that cities are in any way outdated, doomed or otherwise.

I think it's a valid question: When we talk about "saving" cities, we often fail to define the terms. Does saving mean getting people to live there, no matter what? Or does it mean preserving some elusive definition of "urbanity"? I think that in a perfect world, we would want to achieve both ends. But it's not always that simple. And I think the case of Big-Box retailing in Cleveland is a case in point.

You argue that this is the best Cleveland can do because the city kind of sucks. But what do you mean by "the best it can do"? If you are defining Cleveland as a political entity, a place to live, a municipality with financial obligations; and if you are measuring success by the amount of retail and residential development going on there and the amount of revenue generated to keep the city "alive," then yes, this might be the best they can do.

But if you are defining Cleveland in cultural terms, in terms of the survival of distinct "Cleveland" neighborhoods and a "Cleveland" way of life, this might be the very WORST you can do.

I suspect that most people use some combination of these definitions. Which makes assessing something like this shopping center difficult.

That is neither pro-city nor anti-city. That's reality, I think.

[Pilsner 2]

Old Navy already tried a downtown Pittsburgh location in the old Hornes building. It lasted a couple of years. Unfortunately, our downtown will never be revived to where it once was, and should be.

[John Morris]

First, i want to say that, this was unfair shot at Cleveland. I don't know the place but my impression is that most of the city is a flat sprawl of single family homes-- in which case common denominator mall/big box retail will likely be a dominant form of shopping.

Getting to your sentence-- the implication could not have been more clear. "Love or have nastalgia for cities" does not include any rational reason for their existence. I love cities partly because I see them as practical places for most people to live. I see a real paralel between using loaded terms like that and the way the non smoking crowd implies that everyone who quetions them is shilling for a Altria. Somehow, the supporters of sprawl-- which is a product of massive government subsidies and interventions have managed to portray themselves as freemarket. This is a total crock.

[Sam M]

There are no implications involved. Everything is stated directly. The statement "loves and/or is nostalgic for cities" posits three separate groups of people:

Those who love cities but are not nostalgic.
Those who are nostalgic but have no love.
Those who feel both love and nostalgia.
And I think it is obvious that a fourth group must exist: those who feel neither love nor nostalgia.

How you took this to mean that there is no reason to like cities is beyond me. No, the sentence does not include any "rational reason for their existence." But that is just one of many, many things the sentence does not include. I don't think that it is fair to conclude that I disregard everything the sentence does not include.

Particularly when the rest of the post spends a good deal of time discussing things like... the reasons cities exist. Economic reasons. Cultural reasons. Aesthetic reasons.

You say you like cities because they are practical places for most people to live. Really? If that is the case, I would think you might want to address my question rather than lambaste it. Because a big-box center inside city limits is clearly going to make the area more practical for some people. Less practical for other people. I guess it depends on whether you like to shop at big box centers. Some people LOVE to. Some people HATE to. So a stated preference for practicality is not enough. You have to further define what practicality means, and for whom.

It seems that you are criticizing a single sentence for failing to do what the entire post is doing. Namely, it is questioning what we really want cities to do. If you are going to hammer people for asking such questions, it's going to be a mightly lonely conversation.

[John Morris]

I will let my words speak for themseves on this one. What you tried to slip in is that this is just some issue of taste. The fact is that on pure economic level of dollars invested, infrastructure, time and all the other inputs involved--Dense mixed use cities make sense. It's only because we live in a society in which government intervention hides or distorts these costs that makes us not see them.

For the most part, the topic is moronic. Big box will work in low density areas of cities. Once a city has a lot of that type of housing, it is almost inevitable and just a question of wheather it ends up in the city limits.

[Sam M]

"What you tried to slip in is that this is just some issue of taste."

Are you serious? An ENTIRE PARAGRAPH addresses the economic side of the issue.

It seems to me that you are the guilty one here. In your fervor to claim that dense, mixed-use cities are good things (a point with which I agree) you are completely disregarding any other argument and any other way of viewing what a city is. Which seems odd to me. I can't think of a single other complex human institution that performs a UNIQUELY economic or aethetic or cultural function. Even ARMIES have cultural and aesthtic functions. And when deciding what to do with them and how to change them and how to use them, only a fool would completely disregard those functions. Because very often, those ancillary functions become what people care about most.

But all that's beside the point. Beause I dedicated an entire paragraph to the very function you are talking about. Economics. You might disagree with my assessment. But to say that I never addressed it in an effort to imply that cities have no economic function and serve only as a measure of taste is nonsense.

[Jonathan Potts]

Let's be clear about something. As much as I prefer cities to the suburbs, and agree that we have some policies that have encouraged suburban growth at the expense of urban desnity, all of those policies could be reversed tomorrow, and plenty of Americans would still prefer living in their detached, single-family homes, driving themselves to whatever stores, chains or otherwise, that their communities have to offer. And they would find a way to make it work. Decades of land-use regulations in Europe haven't prevented European cities from starting to sprawl along the same patterns as their American counterparts.

Let's also not kid ourselves that many people who defend urban living do so because they find the suburbs aesthetically and culturally displeasing. Offensive, even. Recently, I read an essay in the New Yorker which lamented how many chain stores and restaurants are cropping up in New York City. The writer misses the local flavor that made him love New York. That sounds like nostalgia for me.

[John Morris]

Europe does not look like America at all and to the extent that it does it owes that to socialist schemes like the Autobahn. In fact, when the highway system was first proposed, it's main justifcation was an alleged military need. ( which is very wierd since Russia was largly defended by it's lack of highways in WWII) to some extent Europe is moving towards the kind of normal rail oriented suburbs that were the norm here.

What amazes me is the way discusions of suburbs never look at their government backing. Mass transit is always talked about as "subsidized" while free highways built at taxpayers expense are not.

[John Morris]

Europe does not look like America at all and to the extent that it does it owes that to socialist schemes like the Autobahn. In fact, when the highway system was first proposed, it's main justifcation was an alleged military need. ( which is very wierd since Russia was largly defended by it's lack of highways in WWII) to some extent Europe is moving towards the kind of normal rail oriented suburbs that were the norm here.

What amazes me is the way discusions of suburbs never look at their government backing. Mass transit is always talked about as "subsidized" while free highways built at taxpayers expense are not.

[John Morris]

As far as I know, most of the studies on why people choose not to live in Pittsburgh list taxes, crime and bad schools as the main reasons. But this blog never talks about them. Instead there are constant unsupported claims that everyone wants to live in a house with a huge yard. In a nutshell, a lot of people leave cities to escape disfunctional governments.

As far as I know, the major driver for sprawl in the U.K., is that London is far too pricey for most people. From my own personal experience talking to people in NY's suburbs, I would say that is also true there. A lot of these places are not that popular but are what people can afford. This seems to be supported by the fact that a lot of people ( the ones who can afford it ) are moving into NY from it's suburbs.

[Sam M]

You must be reading different reports than I have. (Regarding your comment from two posts ago about how people do not discuss the costs of roads.) Because in the past ten years I doubt I have seen more than five newspaper or magazine articles that address "sprawl" and other forms of suburban development without mentioning the high costs of roads, schools and other infrastructure.

Take a look at the Washington Post. Search for an article about Herndon or Tysons Corner or Reston. In almost every case, it seems to me that costs associated with building new roads and schools are not only mentioned, but serve as the driving force of the story.

Not to long ago I linked to a few such stories detailing how local governments are forcing developers to pay for the roads.

Or search for the word Konterra, a proposed city between Baltimore and Washington. It has been on the drawing board for 30 years. Why? Because there has been a huge debate about... Who should pay for the roads.

I could go on and on. But I think it is wrong to imply that this is a discussion that is not taking place. In fact, it appears to be the MOST IMPORTANT discussion going on with regard to suburban development. Or at least one of the most important. Maybe you don't like how it's being resolved. But people are clearly discussing the issue.

[John Morris]

It's nice to see that it is ocasionally mentioned but it rarely goes beyond that. It's showing up as news in papers now because it is a new trend to even ask about the cost. The Virginia story about developers being asked to pay for infrastructure is news because it is unusual.

[Sam M]

"Instead there are constant unsupported claims that everyone wants to live in a house with a huge yard."

When did I make that kind of claim? Since I make it constantly, it ought to be easy to track one down.

In the meantime, to see if people really DO like living in a house with a huge yard, I propose this thought experiment:

Let's say you clear a whole acre in Greenwich Village, lay down turf, put up a white picket fence and, smack in the middle of it, you put up a 7,500 foot McMansion.

What do you think that might rent for? Do you think it might go for more than a 430 square-foot efficiency in the same neighborhood?

Why might that be? Do you think it might be because people like a lot of space?

Is that really all that controversial?

[John Morris]

I think that most people who think a little would see that the convenience of a place like Greenwich Villiage comes from it's density. We all know that big houses in the middle of vibrant areas would be be super desirable.My mom lives in an area with a lot of big houses. But she is smart enough to see that without the masses of big apartment buildings nearby she would not have much in the way of convenience.

Anyway, does this blog ever talk about anything else? I have read many stories and polls in Pittsburgh that show that crime, taxes and schools are the major things that drive people out of the city. I think that there is plenty of evidence that cities as whole can be very popular. Pittsburgh's major problem is a bad government. I think that is true in a lot of cities.

[Amos the Poker Cat]

Europe does not look like America at all and to the extent that it does it owes that to socialist schemes like the Autobahn. In fact, when the highway system was first proposed, it's main justifcation was an alleged military need. ( which is very wierd since Russia was largly defended by it's lack of highways in WWII)

This is unclear. Do you mean the Eropean highways were a military justification, or ours?

The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways was "championed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower- who was influenced by both his experiences as a young soldier crossing the country in 1919 following the route of the Lincoln Highway and his appreciation of the German autobahn network - as a necessary component of a national defense system. It would be able to provide key ground transport of military supplies and troop deployments.",

Besides troop movements, the highways also allow for emergency evacuation of cities.

The lack of highways in Russia was a double edged sword, it also made resuppling (both weapons, and FOOD!) the Russian army extremely difficult. I wonder what percentage of Russian military death during WWII were due to starvation.

[John Morris]

Emergency evacuation of cities !!!??? Like New Orleans ?

[John Morris]

I was obviously refering to Eisenhower. The point stands that the national highway system could not have been justified on economic grounds and went hand in hand with the regulation that destoyed the formerly private rail system

[John Morris]

Anyone who thinks that NY can be evacuated by cars or even busses is really sick. The New Orleans event shows the government's promises to be the blatant lies they were.