Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

11097Re: [carfree_cities] Re: recycling big-box stores

Expand Messages
  • Brian Labadie
    Nov 17, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      This is all very interesting and a great investigation into the reuse of
      unlikely structures, however, when considering this from a carfree
      perspective, the feasability depends on the location of the subject "big

      If the location is removed from public transport and in a low density
      suburban setting (and that is usually the case with these type of
      developments), why encourage the reuse of it? People would still have to
      drive to the location, defeating its purpose.

      This is obviously a designer's dream as there are infinite possibilities,
      but this issue we're facing needs to be looked at on a macro level. Let the
      market take it's course and not try to reinvent something that was flawed in
      the preliminary planning stages. The best use I can see with an abandoned
      big box is reusing the building materials for a quality infill development
      in a dense, urban area and giving the land back to nature.

      On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Matt Hohmeister <matt@...> wrote:

      > I find this quite interesting because because I'm interested in how to
      > convert existing areas to carfree without having to demolish existing
      > structures.
      > I'm also not exactly a fan of eminent domain, so I'd rather not use
      > that to make carfree development.
      > If an area becomes carfree, land prices per square foot will go up
      > considerably; I think the developers converting big boxes would be
      > happy to sell off strips through their property to make public
      > streets. A single existing big-box property would probably be turned
      > into several blocks: the big box itself on its own block, with all
      > other blocks ranging in sizes from 200 to 400 feet on a side. These
      > streets would probably range in width from 10 to 100 feet, so it
      > wouldn't exactly be a loss to the property owner.
      > I know that a property owner could easily just build their own streets
      > on their carfree property, but that's not the point. Privately owned
      > streets mean that the owner can dictate terms of use; I don't call it
      > publicly accessible unless it's publicly accessible 24*7 with no
      > restrictions aside from causing a nuisance or danger.
      > --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com <carfree_cities%40yahoogroups.com>,
      > "J.H. Crawford" <mailbox@...>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > Hi All,
      > >
      > > This is moderately interesting:
      > >
      > >
      > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/13/AR2008111303039.html?hpid=topnews
      > >
      > > Best,
      > >
      > > Joel
      > >
      > >
      > > Big Box & Beyond
      > >
      > > Today's Temples of Consumption Don't Have To Be Tomorrow's Ruins.
      > What's in Store?

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 5 messages in this topic