No Mourning for the Mall

Very nice, brings back memories of when I was a kid, my friends dad and his hardware store, my second grade teacher and her little market, then the mall came! The mall was cool to be in and all that but when I think back I don't think of the mall, but I do think of the hardware store and Mr. Rusconi, and the market with Mrs Curtis...lasting impressions in Guilford, CT. New owners of both stores these days but there still there!

Hey Joe! (That'd be a great name for a song...)

Just wanted to throw a few thoughts your way. First, I've commented on a similar topic on a local blog here: http://downtownflint.blogspot.com/2010/05/celebrating-suburbia.html and you might find it interesting.

First, it's my understanding that, like so many malls across the U.S., the demolition project you mention wasn't done to accomodate the restaurant. In fact, it was part of a comprehensive, outdoor, 'lifestyle center' development--which is ppresently anchored by a bar & grill, bookstore and online-university (crazy!). The only part of the mall that was demo'd was actually a 6-year-old (new) addition built to accomodate...I forget the retailer. The free-standing restaurant came much later, as, I believe, part of the development's later phases. Compare/contrast the irony of this to the original mall developments by Victor Gruen!

Second, I agree with the economic/thinly layered vs. social/thickly layered dicotomy of the mall vs. traditional downtown. However, I have to think we can sit back and think this only through the virtue of hind-sight. The unfortunate reality is that the vast, sweeping majority of downtowns (Holly included) have been dealt serious blows and suffered through decades of societal investment that deliberately prevented a 'thicker,' more meaningful process of development and community investment. It's only now that we're recognizing this and developing strategies to counter-act it. Downtowns are, generally-speaking, pale shadows of their former selves.

Third, I'm pretty sure that most people (the vast majority of people?) actually don't care about downtowns. It's an unfortunate and unhealthy reality, but most people left urban centers deliberately (for better or worse) and few are returning or care to return. Many of those that do are carrying some decidedly un-downtown-like baggage and their interactions are as thin as the malls, or worse, founded on a false perception of history--facadism, rose-colored glasses, nostalgia...

Fourth, we're now looking at an urban resurgence--now a part of federal policy! Great! But it's being driven, by-and-large, by a suburban generation of people who have no connection to what actual downtowns used to be, how they functioned, or what they meant. Cities from New York to San Francisco (whipped up by the marketing and glitzy campaigns of Vancouver, BC) are suburbanizing at a considerable pace, the gated communities growing upward instead of outward and their culture, social ties and economies thinning as a result.

Overall, we all must be very careful about the pictures we're painting of downtowns--especially small, "traditional" downtowns--and that the campaign for their return doesn't become one of putting the mall back downtown--I'd argue that much of what we've seen with 'urbanism' is just that. Neither true urbanism (though I guess it's fair to ask "what IS urbanism?"), nor suburbia, 'Cappuccino Urbanism' is a very real threat to accomplishing a better, "thicker," more meaningful place--whether it's in a traditional downtown or in a vibrant, urbanizing suburban location.

Thank you Doug & Shaun for your comments.

Shaun, I don't disagree with a lot of your points (potential gentrification, etc.) but my point is that people DO care about downtowns, whether or not they use that term or not.

First, there is currently over 2,200 communities across the country that have adopted a historic preservation-based redevelopment model (Main Street). These are mostly volunteer-driven public-private partnerships where both the unit of government and the private sector come together to revitalize the downtown.

Second, the overall design shift of corporate shopping centers to mimic downtowns, including social event programming (Eastwood Town Center in Lansing, as an example, does live music in their courtyard area every Thursday). They are trying damn hard to be downtowns (and are getting pretty good at it.) They recognize the value of the design of downtown, but lack in authenticity.

Third, during 2008-9 national chain stores saw retail sales plummet as much as 28% while independents in organizaed areas (like Main Streets) only saw a 5% decrease. People are voting with their dollars to support Mom & Pops.

Fourth, we are seeing a tremendous amount of relative investment in downtowns across Michigan, even in a down economy. Meanwhile, strip retail development vacancy rates are getting higher and higher. As a state, we are already facing the challenge of overbuilt retail areas (aka Greyfields) in suburban locations.

My point of bringing up Genesee Valley (regardless of the timing) is that no one protested even a partial demolition of the structure. In the meetings we've had already in Flint during the Downtowns of Promise, there's a significant portion of folks who would protest the demolition of any structure downtown, including arguably the worst kept building: Genesee Towers. There is an inherent caring about our downtowns even if it is those of we suburbanites who feel a responsibility to do it.

There are a few more reasons I could give, including enviromental, but it comes down to the fact people DO care about downtown more than the malls. Otherwise, no one would've showed up for our visioning sessions for the Downtowns of Promise, participate in Main Street programs or even volunteer at downtown events.

I was getting ready to write a response after reading Shaun's comments when I scrolled down and saw that you said it all! Way to go, Joe! Nice article and great response. People DO care about Downtowns!!!!

Oh indeed. My apologies if I appeared to suggest that no one cares about downtowns. That wasn't my intent. I, myself, care very deeply, perhaps too much.

But I must cling stead-fastly to my flagpole of caution. It was some very caring people who drove 3 decades of urban renewal projects that, in most every instance, did more harm to the downtowns they were saving, than good. It's very caring people in Vancouver's downtown (3rd densest business district in the world after New York and Tokyo, the last I knew) who are pushing out vibrancy and life because such things are often loud, unattractive and wake them up at nights. It's very caring people who 'preserve' neighborhoods because it keeps there property value stable, keeps "those" people out, and maintains the status quo.

Again, don't get me wrong. I'm very proud of what you, MSHDA, and your partners across the state are doing and I'm proud to be a part of the process here in Flint--I heard great things about you and the program two weeks ago during trips to Rogers City and Boyne City as part of a 'Sustainable Urbanism' mini-course offered by Doug Farr at the UM Biological Station in Pellston. Here especially, it is setting an example that runs counter to the mentalities I've noted in the paragraph above. Long a silent witness to this downfall of good intentions, I feel it necessary to voice them to reinforce the action needed to be taken by everyone to keep them at bay. I want to work towards keeping our downtowns and downtowns everywhere authentic.