this is in line with a trend of other big-box stores that are looking to move into "un-tapped" urban communities. Target and Toys R Us, for example, are among several warehouse-style primarily suburban stores that are increasing their presence in denser walkable neighborhoods within smaller existing storefronts.
I wonder if this is a sign that suburbia is retracting and there is increasing interest in urban living - or is this an ominous sign for the city?
So far in Chicago there have been a mixed bag of results for the big box in the city movement.
Most of the stores I have seen have been built in low density areas where the buildings closely resemble their suburban counterparts with massive parking lots in front and little relationship with anything around them. There have been a few examples of more dense and walkable locations, but many more in the poorer areas which have further diminished the urbanity of those neighborhoods.
If the retailers plan to infill with smaller stores then it could be a sign of the end of the suburban growth model and a retraction of sorts. Or they see an untapped market and hope to continue an unrealistic and unsustainable growth model.
i don't think it's a sign suburbia is contracting; it's simply that big box is looking to tap different markets - primarily urban low-to-mod income familes, but also young professionals and empty-nesters - all without easy access to automobile transportation. imsleepy is spot on about the form of these things. they are not looking to infill or move into high rent locations; they are looking at relatively low density locations adjacent to large residential neighborhoods. my guess is that the work of groups like social compact, showing underserved urban markets, has lead to the rise of these stores. in some ways this is a good thing in that they will be bringing fresh food to historical food deserts. at the same time, i don't think they will be doing anything to substantially improve the physical urban environment in these neighborhoods.
It would be one thing if they were trying to expand into "undesirable" urban markets that have little-to-no real retail options. But, it comes off as them trying to do something completely "new" and trying to drum up support for their "amazing new market innovation."
Like, "Omigod, We've done department stores, we've done supermarkets, we've done department stores, we've done hypermarts and we've done super hypermarts... but, but the next biggest thing in business is... CORNER STORES.
I think it is mildly ironic though that the principal investors behind this new move is Goldman Sachs.
Target, though, made a lot of concessions in building its Harlem store. Like, promising to carry local brands and locally-made goods. Target spent close to a decade of planning and crowd control on developing the least offensive version of super Target they could.
I just don't see Wal-Mart putting forth the effort or money to employ a small army of local buyers to hunt down goods for their New York Mini-Wal-Marts.
That being said, Wal-Mart's general retail model requires them to own property outright... which is why they tend to build gigantic stores in the middle of county lands. At least, that explanation is the non-conspiracy non-Heartland-America variety. As much profit as they make, their stores run at pretty razor thin profit margins. I'm not entirely sure how they could discount that even further or how much they would have to exactly sell in a month to be able to afford a monthly rent of $120,000.
won williams nails my biggest issue of distress with walmarts in the city. As was mentioned above, the walmarts that have been very tentatively allowed in chicago have been located in neighborhoods which are dramatically undeserved by more traditional retail outlets.
They also made important concessions about hiring and promoting locals (though obviously they made no concessions regarding unions...). The bottom line is, if we want to howl about how dangerous such retails are to 'urban fabric' we need to quit ignoring the actual issue that huge swaths of our urban landscape have been so badly ignored and neglected, a wal mart has become the only economically viable option.
There is a reason smaller more local businesses havent provided the necessary services in those areas...
According to Wikipedia U2 launched their PopMart tour at the downtown Manhattan KMart in 1997 - so 13 years ago.
Trader Joe's and Target started going into urban markets at least five years ago.
Of the three examples listed above that I know personally, however, only the Philly KMart was in a building that didn't have an attached parking lot. Old habits die hard?
And that's the trick. As a publicly traded stock, they HAVE TO continually show growth, or their stock value will stagnate. They've over-saturated their own market, and showing steady sales is just not good enough to attract investors. American form of exponential capitalism is a cruel mistress. See Dell, AOL, GM as other examples of companies banging their heads on the ceiling. Apple will get there i a few years as well.
This move by Wal-mart smells of desperation. I kind of like it.
"Wal-Mart needs to have a store concept that brings in customers more than once every two weeks when paychecks are distributed,"
Oh Wal-Mart, you've fucked this country over six ways from Sunday. This recession has taken the heat off of you (that was rightfully deserved), but people have long memories...
The number of people I know that would rather starve to death than enter a Wal-Mart grows every day. Be prepared to have your expansion plans into communities be fought against tooth and nail. Don't be surprised if you manage to open less than half of proposed locations.
Big store shopping experience is unattractive to community focused urbanites to begin with, but Wal-Mart's predatory business policies and the embrace of 'race-to-the-bottom' approach to culture puts them in a category of evil that only few companies have ever managed to become.
Sweet. Walmart is cheap and has pretty decent deals. Wish they would open one of these urban walmarts in downtown DC.
Better yet, a CostCo, Aldi, or something like that would be even better.
In the neighborhood I work you can't get even the most mediocre lunch for under $10. I was hoping some of these city people would get off their highhorse and agree to put down a McDees or Wendys!
I mean seriously - $12 for a cold roast beef sandwich!
med. get off of the lazyhorse and make your own damn cold roast beef sandwich before you go to work. It's simple as that.
As far as cheap, decent deals in places like Wal-Mart, you are paying for a subsidized price. Once you account for the REAL operation cost, the deals start looking anything but. 54% of Wal-Mart employees have no health insurance . Well, they do, through state subsidized poor-people insurance.
I would expect any architect to be better informed on large-impact social issues such as this.
Exactly. Wal-Mart doesn't pay their employees enough, or hire them for enough hours to qualify as full time, or offer them benefits, but DOES train them in how to apply for taxpayer-funded health care for the poor.
steelstuds while the statement would rather starve to death than enter a Wal-Mart is a little hyperbolic, it's only a little so. I despise WalMart and every single damn thing about it. And even outside their lousy employment practices, what they've wreaked on the American small-town landscape is inexcusable. They'll never be able to "change their ways" enough for me to ever forgive them.
Donna, it makes me happy whenever I hear a story of a community successfully fighting off a Wal-Mart invasion. At this point those guys are nothing but con artists.
From architectural/development side, Wal-Mart is extremely successful at acquiring municipal land for next to nothing as well as getting multi-year property tax forgiveness. All in the name of -get this- bringing jobs to the community. ha.
The article touches up on this. The fact that Wal-Mart relies on owning the land of their stores. Their advantage would all but disappear in an urban environment where they would be forced to lease a space at fair-market prices.
Their ability to take a loss on these new types of stores, until competition folds, is still very strong and scary though. Informed consumer will steer clear of them, so there's always hope.
In WalMart's or any corporate retail chain's defense, a lot of retail stores (from your bodega to a medium-sized store) fail miserably at doing two things [in the context of urban environments]--
1) Have a decent interior
2) Provide basic services
The first one isn't an attack on aesthetic directly. But more or less many of these outfits lack general upkeep-- they're barely painted, few are clean, their appliances are often in poor shape and their "retail points" (i.e., shelves, displays, racks, counters, cabinets) are less than attractive.
I'm not saying they have to look good, as in aesthetically pleasing... but they could at least be spray painted once in a while with the grime washed off of them. Also, take down the sunbleached Kathy Ireland Bud Light posters circa 1989. Not saying don't get rid of them... just put up newish ones.
As for the second point... I'm sure all of us have been in an a place like New York and have had to use the bathroom. But where do you piss? Your first thought is to go find a big retail store because surely they have bathrooms, right? Wrong. There isn't a 7-11 or a Duane Reed in all of NYC that has public bathrooms.
That's pretty much why you pay $3 for an iced green tea at Starbucks... that'll end up making you have to go again in 45 minutes at the next Starbucks 15 blocks down the street.
It seems very difficult for Walmart to open stores in big urban areas especially in NY. Walmart is known to destroy small businesses,discourage entrepreneurship,do disgusting business practices such as paying it's employees very low wages with no health insurance and this won't fly in a place like NY not to mention the zoning restrictions and the need for public approval.
This would be just damaging to the urban fabric as mentioned before.I'd rather pay 2$ more for my cabbage to support the local business than shop at Walmart.
you might pay $2 more for your cabbage, paradox, but you're not the demographic these chain stores are catering to with these stores; they are looking for the people that can't pay $2 more for their cabbage. in that respect, they are providing a service to low income neighborhoods. many of these neighborhoods really want these stores to come in and provide them with inexpensive, decent quality food. (i know this for a fact as i work in many of these communities.) my only beef with these stores is that in order to meet their profit margin, they still need to meet parking counts with large swaths of asphalt, and they throw-up dryvit monstrosities that display a stupid ambivalence to lot lines, let alone their neighbors. while this may work in some neighborhoods, it really doesn't in others. one would hope that they would work with communities to understand the difference. (sometimes they do, usually they don't.)
[btw sunbleached kathy ireland bud light posters circa 1989 made me lol, because it is so true. just take 'em down and put up a new brooklyn decker poster for the next 20 years.]
It's funny how people who often complain about big business killing small business are the same ones waiting in line at a Starbucks for their tripple Non-dairy vegan organic late.
What does that mean. fade to balck? That the Home Depot has more selection than a neighborhood hardware store? I'm not being snarky, I really don't know what you mean.
med, I agree with you. I only go to Starbucks under duress - when my friends are going and I didn't have time to make my own coffee that morning. Starbucks' coffee just tastes bad, to me, let alone their business practices.
Donna - Dunkin Donuts has the best Coffee by a mile! And you pay considerably less. But because they are scarce compared to Starbucks, I find myself at starbucks because of the same reasons you mentioned!
I'm no cheapskate either....I just can hardly ever see the logic of paying almost 5 bucks for coffee...or an extra $2 for cabbage....
I buy Dunkin' coffee at the grocery store to brew at home, I love it! :-) But when I'm feeling a little flush I buy the local roasting company's coffee - it's twice as much, but they are clients.
Sorry for the threadjack, you know what happens when architects start discussing coffee...back to topic.
Target has built a couple of urban stores in Chicago (one just opened a month or so ago); they're pretty successful interventions from a progressivist urban standpoint. Personally I find that they do in fact fill a need that didn't previous exist in locally-owned shops; I go there for things I can't find locally, so they haven't taken any of my dollars away from any store whose profits stay in the neighborhood. Also, the store designs & locations have done pretty well to encourage local foottraffic & public transit usage, not to mention they pay their employees a great wage so it's a great jobs introduction into the local economy. I'm a fan of Target. Also, they do at least have a program of giving back to local communities. Does Walmart have that? I don't know.
Walmart spent a long time battling the mayor over entry to the city, I think because he wanted them to pay a living wage and they wouldn't do it. That tells you something...
oh, just read the other responses above. I agree on the other big-box intrustions into Chicago. (Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and the Target on Addison come to mind.) Also I was disappointed that Costco, when it came, didn't put more effort into the urban context, but that company can almost do no wrong in my eyes so I give it a pass.
Trader Joe's already operates on the model of the small urban market store so I don't count them. When they started expanding back in CA about, oh, 15 years or so ago they only did in-fill. Their stores are much smaller than typical grocery stores and still often are located in existing buildings (even under Aldi ownership... actually, Aldi does the same thing (mostly) around here.) Anyway...
Those juxtaposed renderings up there are fascinating. Note how the first one describes a pedestrian's world - fruit boxes right on the sidewalk, animated sidewalk w/ tons of room & variety, nice paving, no cars in sight, multiple shop entries and glassy shop facades for window shopping. Now contrast that with what's actually built. An island in the middle of parking. Who is ever, ever going to walk down that little walkway in front of that building? Who "happens upon" this store, walking down the street? You have to purposefully drive to it, and you will only walk insofar as is required to get from parking space to front door. You will discover no new types of fruit, beckoning to you from attractive sidewalk displays. There's no interaction with the interior before you enter - no teaser, no chance to see and be enticed by about something new. Just a pesky walk you have to get out of the way so you can enter the sole door. Ugh. There is nothing "urban" about that store.
Monoprix does a nice job of fitting in urban contexts, esp. in/around Paris. They really do have the 2-level store format down, with general merch (clothes/electronics/home/etc) on the ground floor and groceries in the basement. I could see a concept like that working in some American cities.
Built on the site of a former home improvement store using existing structure and parking, built in a more economically depressed commercial area. Holton St. often marks the "edge of the ghetto" in Milwaukee. Parking along Holton St., Richards St., and Capitol Drive as the store takes up 3/4 of a city block for parking. No direct street access.
Trader Joe's - Silver Spring Dr. & Port Washington Rd., Glendale, WI
Located a 15 minute drive from UW-Milwaukee.
Built on the site of a former gas station when the Bayshore Mall expanded in the more affluent urban suburbs of Glendale & Whitefish Bay, WI, adjacent to the interstate highway. Parking structure along Port Washington Rd behind the store, shared with other businesses. No direct street access (entrance is around the corner of the building left of the photo).
@milwuakee08: I guess I hate the second option so much less! At least Trader Joe's is kind-of trying. To be fair, two businesses are trying to attract an entirely different type of a customer.
@med. "It's funny how people who often complain about big business killing small business are the same ones waiting in line at a Starbucks for their tripple Non-dairy vegan organic late."
What's your point doofus? Starbucks is a mother Theresa compared to Wal-Mart. Starbucks is self aware of their sheer size and have made a number of improvements in their business practices based on the criticism they've received over the years. The are almost an ethical corporation. That said, the anti-corporate mob members do stay away from shopping at Starbucks. America's taste for quality coffee has really improved in the last few decades. Most cities will have much better (locally owned) options for a good cup of java.
I just went off topic here, but med. your comment was truly half-assed. Try again.
@steelstuds, I don't think it's so much the type of customer, but more the volume of customers, and the city's ability to provide access to those customers. Businesses like Walmart are "regional", meaning they want to try to provide something for everyone in the city, which means that their location is somewhat irrelevant, as they aren't dependent as much on their local neighborhood. In fact, it's generally to their advantage to destroy the neighborhood they're in to make room for the rest of the city to come to them. On the other hand, a more "local" business like Starbucks depends less on the entire city coming to one location. I used the terms local and regional in this case not to describe where a business is headquartered, but who it serves.
@meds, I worked at a locally owned coffee shop all through college, and people would come in and say how much they hated Starbucks. I'd just smile and nod, because in the end, THEY ARE ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME. We bought things locally, just like Starbucks did, we also bought a lot of non-local stuff, just like Starbucks, we charged almost the same prices, provided almost the same products, and paid our employees the same low wages. Actually, Starbucks had a better health plan than my locally owned company.
milwaukee, I've actually been to that Trader Joes! That seems to be their urban M.O.: they have a streetfront location with storefront glazing at the sidewalk, but! the actually entry to the store is on the back with some surface parking, behind the building. That's exactly how the Philly location was, and the neighborhood made a huge hue and cry about the fact that there was no entrance ON the sidewalk - but TJ's company line seems to be that they can't have secure control at two points of entry, so they're keeping the only door at the parking lot.
Steelstud, If I was interested in "debating" with a total buffoon with nothing to contribute, I would come to you. Next.
Anyways,
On the topic of corporate giants taking over small business, it's all about being able to market something at a competitive price to pepole who are willing to go for it. And chances are, people in general will be willing to go to a Walmart in the city to get their goods rather than a more expensive place. It's just the nature of the beast. I'm not by any means anti-small business - I just think people have to know where to market themselves and how in an ever-changing business climate. In the city I live, people are more than willing to go to the local cafes not only because their coffee is better quality but the atmosphere is far better than a s-bucks. And the most important thing is that in an increasing competitive global market many of these kinds of small business have reinvented themselves and taken things to the next level so that they don'ty have to worry about Wallmat, Starbucks, and all those other places trying to steal their business.
not a proponent of "urban walmart" however... the new model of walmart does not require property ownership- it's a 99 year lease by the building owner, as typical, with WM agreeing to fulfill a portion of that lease. the urban walmart is not the dark dingy type we all know... think of Whole Foods.
btw- i'm not a proponent of Whole Foods, either.
a bit 'o' long rambling histrionics about supermarkets:
they are supposed to replicate the variety of small food-stuff stores that once occurred in older (walkable) middle-class urban neighborhoods. You can still see this range of specialty food stores in places that never lost their middle-class patronage (especially common outside of the states).
in places that experienced a big drain on middle to upper-middle class purchasing power, these smaller stores couldn't exist without their higher-margin purchases. and since in the suburbs people drive everywhere, it makes sense for all of their stuff to be in one place - and often one big store. it really is all about convenience now as it was then (people don't like to waste a lot of time walking/driving everywhere - the small town I lived in for a few years there was one tiny grocery store where we'd get our staples - and quite a few other small places a short drive away to pick up veggies, eggs, milk, meat... however, if we wanted clothes or shoes we had to drive 45 minutes to the nearest big city. walmart sees this gap in the local small-town economies which is how they end up displacing the "mom and pop" stores).
the downside is that supermarkets and other big box stores, even though we think they have a lot of stuff, really don't have as wide a variety and quality as once existed in that dense urban neighborhood. for example, I can go to a fromagerie in paris and get anything from super cheap brie for the proletariat to ridiculously expensive truffle-infused Camembert for the bourgeoisie. but I know I'll just get some middle-of-the road chevre (out of several varieties) and a 50 cent mini-baguette and maybe a pear or apple around the corner - go to a parc and have a really nice $3 lunch. at walmart, I can get a stale baguette that costs $4 and one kind of crappy dry goat cheese that is $7 (if I'm lucky). I'd have to go well out of my way to buy good "fancy cheese" and decent fresh bread. it's not worth it to me because I'm already there for an hour and I just wasted $4 on gas. kraft singles and wonderbread aren't remotely close to what I wanted, but it still costs more than my quick lunch in paris. I'd have to stock up for the apocalypse for my trip to make any economic sense.
the problem in food deserts is that there aren't enough people with money to support the kind and variety of small places we all seem to fantasize about - and in the suburbs, the purchasing power of people who support stuff like fancy cheese places has to be much higher because it's a special trip, not a walk around the corner. so instead of one place able to specialize in one item and cater to a wide range of people due to their symbiotic relationships with the adjacent stores, you get fancy out-of-the-way places for rich people, "destination" shopping centers (designed for you to spend an entire day there, like you are vacation), and mediocre high-volume mega-marts for the rest of us (home depot falls into this latter category, btw). - and in poor urban neighborhoods the margins are so razor thin that corner stores need to sell lottery tickets and cigarettes to break even.
it's not so much about "marketing" for small business, it's about lot of things being in one place for convenience and the right mix and critical mass of economic groups patronizing the area - which is how malls work.
also - grocery stores can be a catalyst for neighborhood revival (and gentrification) in urban areas - especially if they play nice in the existing fabric. I think it would be ironic if walmart played this role - however, many urban neighborhoods aren't the poverty-stricken 3rd world countries that they were in the 80s... and I think walmart is simply following the money.
toaster, in South Philly it was common to see fresh produce vendors set up trucks near the big Catholic churches and sell fruits and veggies a couple-few days a week. It wasn't highest quality, and it wasn't cheap, but there's a captive audience of carless, non-affluent people in those neighborhoods that NEED fresh produce because nowhere within 2 miles is selling it in any other format.
I think a re-imagining of dense urban retail doesn't need to include big box stores. Pop-ups, mobile carts, and networked small shops tied together with one co-op type supply chain - that could all work.
Hey med. I may be a bafoon, but even this monkey's not dumb enough to fall for libertarian trappings of "it's all about free market economy man" that your family of slugs likes to repeat ad nauseam.
At some point a large corporation becomes powerful enough to directly influence political process, and instead of competing, they get to rewrite the rules of the game in their favor. Big-pharma, big-corn, auto industry are all guilty of this. The cost of doing business with Wal-Mart is much higher than what your bill comes out to. You are capable of grasping the concept of hidden cost right? That $19.95/day van rental is really closer to $100. That $99 iPhone is really $2K over the course of the contract, etc..Wal-Mart pricing works the same way too, only you don't get to see the final bill. Various levels of government end up picking up the tab.
I'm not defending their competition either, or merits of ma-n-pa centric economy. Wal-Mart's asshattery is well documented, and calling them out on it is more than fair game.
steelstuds - no need for name calling - med does bring up a good point that people will generally go where they perceive some kind of value (which includes both price and convenience - often one trumping the other) over some kind of social/economic injustice - unless it affects them personally or they are "educated" about it.
but you're also right that we often don't really comprehend the total cost of things.
toaster: there is nothing better for getting your cardiac rate up (without any of that pesky exercising) than some playful name calling. It's good for you!
I understand it's impossible to be on top of all issues in this very complex world. But when so many entities are trying to fuck you over, I applaud all effort at trying to find out what's going on.
What really gets me though, is willful ignorance. That 'har, har can't hear you anymore' attitude. med. may be in minority on this topic here, but his attitude is much more prevalent in general population. It's a shame really. We all deserve a better societal model than the one envisioned by the Waltons.
Big box retail won't work where density allows for true competition. Big Box retail is dependent on car culture, won't work with pedestrians for whom going next door doesn't mean turning on the car and waiting for 3 turn signals.
Oct 20, 10 8:26 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Walmart goes Urban
commentary here
this is in line with a trend of other big-box stores that are looking to move into "un-tapped" urban communities. Target and Toys R Us, for example, are among several warehouse-style primarily suburban stores that are increasing their presence in denser walkable neighborhoods within smaller existing storefronts.
I wonder if this is a sign that suburbia is retracting and there is increasing interest in urban living - or is this an ominous sign for the city?
thoughts?
It depends.
So far in Chicago there have been a mixed bag of results for the big box in the city movement.
Most of the stores I have seen have been built in low density areas where the buildings closely resemble their suburban counterparts with massive parking lots in front and little relationship with anything around them. There have been a few examples of more dense and walkable locations, but many more in the poorer areas which have further diminished the urbanity of those neighborhoods.
If the retailers plan to infill with smaller stores then it could be a sign of the end of the suburban growth model and a retraction of sorts. Or they see an untapped market and hope to continue an unrealistic and unsustainable growth model.
Does Walmart know what infill means?
i don't think it's a sign suburbia is contracting; it's simply that big box is looking to tap different markets - primarily urban low-to-mod income familes, but also young professionals and empty-nesters - all without easy access to automobile transportation. imsleepy is spot on about the form of these things. they are not looking to infill or move into high rent locations; they are looking at relatively low density locations adjacent to large residential neighborhoods. my guess is that the work of groups like social compact, showing underserved urban markets, has lead to the rise of these stores. in some ways this is a good thing in that they will be bringing fresh food to historical food deserts. at the same time, i don't think they will be doing anything to substantially improve the physical urban environment in these neighborhoods.
Eh, I'm a bit torn on this.
It would be one thing if they were trying to expand into "undesirable" urban markets that have little-to-no real retail options. But, it comes off as them trying to do something completely "new" and trying to drum up support for their "amazing new market innovation."
Like, "Omigod, We've done department stores, we've done supermarkets, we've done department stores, we've done hypermarts and we've done super hypermarts... but, but the next biggest thing in business is... CORNER STORES.
I think it is mildly ironic though that the principal investors behind this new move is Goldman Sachs.
Target, though, made a lot of concessions in building its Harlem store. Like, promising to carry local brands and locally-made goods. Target spent close to a decade of planning and crowd control on developing the least offensive version of super Target they could.
I just don't see Wal-Mart putting forth the effort or money to employ a small army of local buyers to hunt down goods for their New York Mini-Wal-Marts.
That being said, Wal-Mart's general retail model requires them to own property outright... which is why they tend to build gigantic stores in the middle of county lands. At least, that explanation is the non-conspiracy non-Heartland-America variety. As much profit as they make, their stores run at pretty razor thin profit margins. I'm not entirely sure how they could discount that even further or how much they would have to exactly sell in a month to be able to afford a monthly rent of $120,000.
imsleepy -
I'm guessing no to walmart understanding infill - their "marketside" concept store shows imagery on their website like this:
quaint small-town new-urbanist fantasy...
when in reality these stores look like this:
basically a CVS with veggies.
Who did that concept store rendering? The people who animate Veggie Tales?
You mean, Goldman Sachs... one of the smartest companies on the face of this planet... falls for shit like that?
won williams nails my biggest issue of distress with walmarts in the city. As was mentioned above, the walmarts that have been very tentatively allowed in chicago have been located in neighborhoods which are dramatically undeserved by more traditional retail outlets.
They also made important concessions about hiring and promoting locals (though obviously they made no concessions regarding unions...). The bottom line is, if we want to howl about how dangerous such retails are to 'urban fabric' we need to quit ignoring the actual issue that huge swaths of our urban landscape have been so badly ignored and neglected, a wal mart has become the only economically viable option.
There is a reason smaller more local businesses havent provided the necessary services in those areas...
Great photographic comparison, toaster!
According to Wikipedia U2 launched their PopMart tour at the downtown Manhattan KMart in 1997 - so 13 years ago.
Trader Joe's and Target started going into urban markets at least five years ago.
Of the three examples listed above that I know personally, however, only the Philly KMart was in a building that didn't have an attached parking lot. Old habits die hard?
The quotes in the article pretty much say it all:
"There are only so many places they can grow."
And that's the trick. As a publicly traded stock, they HAVE TO continually show growth, or their stock value will stagnate. They've over-saturated their own market, and showing steady sales is just not good enough to attract investors. American form of exponential capitalism is a cruel mistress. See Dell, AOL, GM as other examples of companies banging their heads on the ceiling. Apple will get there i a few years as well.
This move by Wal-mart smells of desperation. I kind of like it.
"Wal-Mart needs to have a store concept that brings in customers more than once every two weeks when paychecks are distributed,"
Oh Wal-Mart, you've fucked this country over six ways from Sunday. This recession has taken the heat off of you (that was rightfully deserved), but people have long memories...
The number of people I know that would rather starve to death than enter a Wal-Mart grows every day. Be prepared to have your expansion plans into communities be fought against tooth and nail. Don't be surprised if you manage to open less than half of proposed locations.
Big store shopping experience is unattractive to community focused urbanites to begin with, but Wal-Mart's predatory business policies and the embrace of 'race-to-the-bottom' approach to culture puts them in a category of evil that only few companies have ever managed to become.
Sweet. Walmart is cheap and has pretty decent deals. Wish they would open one of these urban walmarts in downtown DC.
Better yet, a CostCo, Aldi, or something like that would be even better.
In the neighborhood I work you can't get even the most mediocre lunch for under $10. I was hoping some of these city people would get off their highhorse and agree to put down a McDees or Wendys!
I mean seriously - $12 for a cold roast beef sandwich!
med. get off of the lazyhorse and make your own damn cold roast beef sandwich before you go to work. It's simple as that.
As far as cheap, decent deals in places like Wal-Mart, you are paying for a subsidized price. Once you account for the REAL operation cost, the deals start looking anything but. 54% of Wal-Mart employees have no health insurance . Well, they do, through state subsidized poor-people insurance.
I would expect any architect to be better informed on large-impact social issues such as this.
Exactly. Wal-Mart doesn't pay their employees enough, or hire them for enough hours to qualify as full time, or offer them benefits, but DOES train them in how to apply for taxpayer-funded health care for the poor.
steelstuds while the statement would rather starve to death than enter a Wal-Mart is a little hyperbolic, it's only a little so. I despise WalMart and every single damn thing about it. And even outside their lousy employment practices, what they've wreaked on the American small-town landscape is inexcusable. They'll never be able to "change their ways" enough for me to ever forgive them.
Donna, it makes me happy whenever I hear a story of a community successfully fighting off a Wal-Mart invasion. At this point those guys are nothing but con artists.
From architectural/development side, Wal-Mart is extremely successful at acquiring municipal land for next to nothing as well as getting multi-year property tax forgiveness. All in the name of -get this- bringing jobs to the community. ha.
The article touches up on this. The fact that Wal-Mart relies on owning the land of their stores. Their advantage would all but disappear in an urban environment where they would be forced to lease a space at fair-market prices.
Their ability to take a loss on these new types of stores, until competition folds, is still very strong and scary though. Informed consumer will steer clear of them, so there's always hope.
In WalMart's or any corporate retail chain's defense, a lot of retail stores (from your bodega to a medium-sized store) fail miserably at doing two things [in the context of urban environments]--
1) Have a decent interior
2) Provide basic services
The first one isn't an attack on aesthetic directly. But more or less many of these outfits lack general upkeep-- they're barely painted, few are clean, their appliances are often in poor shape and their "retail points" (i.e., shelves, displays, racks, counters, cabinets) are less than attractive.
I'm not saying they have to look good, as in aesthetically pleasing... but they could at least be spray painted once in a while with the grime washed off of them. Also, take down the sunbleached Kathy Ireland Bud Light posters circa 1989. Not saying don't get rid of them... just put up newish ones.
As for the second point... I'm sure all of us have been in an a place like New York and have had to use the bathroom. But where do you piss? Your first thought is to go find a big retail store because surely they have bathrooms, right? Wrong. There isn't a 7-11 or a Duane Reed in all of NYC that has public bathrooms.
That's pretty much why you pay $3 for an iced green tea at Starbucks... that'll end up making you have to go again in 45 minutes at the next Starbucks 15 blocks down the street.
It seems very difficult for Walmart to open stores in big urban areas especially in NY. Walmart is known to destroy small businesses,discourage entrepreneurship,do disgusting business practices such as paying it's employees very low wages with no health insurance and this won't fly in a place like NY not to mention the zoning restrictions and the need for public approval.
This would be just damaging to the urban fabric as mentioned before.I'd rather pay 2$ more for my cabbage to support the local business than shop at Walmart.
you might pay $2 more for your cabbage, paradox, but you're not the demographic these chain stores are catering to with these stores; they are looking for the people that can't pay $2 more for their cabbage. in that respect, they are providing a service to low income neighborhoods. many of these neighborhoods really want these stores to come in and provide them with inexpensive, decent quality food. (i know this for a fact as i work in many of these communities.) my only beef with these stores is that in order to meet their profit margin, they still need to meet parking counts with large swaths of asphalt, and they throw-up dryvit monstrosities that display a stupid ambivalence to lot lines, let alone their neighbors. while this may work in some neighborhoods, it really doesn't in others. one would hope that they would work with communities to understand the difference. (sometimes they do, usually they don't.)
[btw sunbleached kathy ireland bud light posters circa 1989 made me lol, because it is so true. just take 'em down and put up a new brooklyn decker poster for the next 20 years.]
It's funny how people who often complain about big business killing small business are the same ones waiting in line at a Starbucks for their tripple Non-dairy vegan organic late.
I haven't been to NYC in a while, but I don't remember any trailer parks there the last time I passed through....
Certainly a good percentage of their profits are derived from outsourcing their costs - in housing, health insurance, etc.
That Walton family compound outside Bentonville requires maintenance, no?
we got a home depot by the flatiron building, in an urban context, and it has everything the little guys dont.
how ya like them apples
What does that mean. fade to balck? That the Home Depot has more selection than a neighborhood hardware store? I'm not being snarky, I really don't know what you mean.
med, I agree with you. I only go to Starbucks under duress - when my friends are going and I didn't have time to make my own coffee that morning. Starbucks' coffee just tastes bad, to me, let alone their business practices.
Donna - Dunkin Donuts has the best Coffee by a mile! And you pay considerably less. But because they are scarce compared to Starbucks, I find myself at starbucks because of the same reasons you mentioned!
I'm no cheapskate either....I just can hardly ever see the logic of paying almost 5 bucks for coffee...or an extra $2 for cabbage....
I buy Dunkin' coffee at the grocery store to brew at home, I love it! :-) But when I'm feeling a little flush I buy the local roasting company's coffee - it's twice as much, but they are clients.
Sorry for the threadjack, you know what happens when architects start discussing coffee...back to topic.
clearly you do not live in the northeast.
Target has built a couple of urban stores in Chicago (one just opened a month or so ago); they're pretty successful interventions from a progressivist urban standpoint. Personally I find that they do in fact fill a need that didn't previous exist in locally-owned shops; I go there for things I can't find locally, so they haven't taken any of my dollars away from any store whose profits stay in the neighborhood. Also, the store designs & locations have done pretty well to encourage local foottraffic & public transit usage, not to mention they pay their employees a great wage so it's a great jobs introduction into the local economy. I'm a fan of Target. Also, they do at least have a program of giving back to local communities. Does Walmart have that? I don't know.
Walmart spent a long time battling the mayor over entry to the city, I think because he wanted them to pay a living wage and they wouldn't do it. That tells you something...
Just to say that not all big-boxes are the same.
oh, just read the other responses above. I agree on the other big-box intrustions into Chicago. (Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and the Target on Addison come to mind.) Also I was disappointed that Costco, when it came, didn't put more effort into the urban context, but that company can almost do no wrong in my eyes so I give it a pass.
Trader Joe's already operates on the model of the small urban market store so I don't count them. When they started expanding back in CA about, oh, 15 years or so ago they only did in-fill. Their stores are much smaller than typical grocery stores and still often are located in existing buildings (even under Aldi ownership... actually, Aldi does the same thing (mostly) around here.) Anyway...
Those juxtaposed renderings up there are fascinating. Note how the first one describes a pedestrian's world - fruit boxes right on the sidewalk, animated sidewalk w/ tons of room & variety, nice paving, no cars in sight, multiple shop entries and glassy shop facades for window shopping. Now contrast that with what's actually built. An island in the middle of parking. Who is ever, ever going to walk down that little walkway in front of that building? Who "happens upon" this store, walking down the street? You have to purposefully drive to it, and you will only walk insofar as is required to get from parking space to front door. You will discover no new types of fruit, beckoning to you from attractive sidewalk displays. There's no interaction with the interior before you enter - no teaser, no chance to see and be enticed by about something new. Just a pesky walk you have to get out of the way so you can enter the sole door. Ugh. There is nothing "urban" about that store.
Monoprix does a nice job of fitting in urban contexts, esp. in/around Paris. They really do have the 2-level store format down, with general merch (clothes/electronics/home/etc) on the ground floor and groceries in the basement. I could see a concept like that working in some American cities.
swiss coop sounds similar to monoprix. works well and could be successful if employed in the states. they even hire architects...
frankly, i don't see target being very successful in urban markets if their overlords keeping working to screw the LGBT community.
donna sink,
yes, precisely
monoprix is awesome.
Walmart - Capitol Dr. & Holton St. Milwaukee, WI
Located a 5 minute drive from UW-Milwaukee.
Built on the site of a former home improvement store using existing structure and parking, built in a more economically depressed commercial area. Holton St. often marks the "edge of the ghetto" in Milwaukee. Parking along Holton St., Richards St., and Capitol Drive as the store takes up 3/4 of a city block for parking. No direct street access.
Trader Joe's - Silver Spring Dr. & Port Washington Rd., Glendale, WI
Located a 15 minute drive from UW-Milwaukee.
Built on the site of a former gas station when the Bayshore Mall expanded in the more affluent urban suburbs of Glendale & Whitefish Bay, WI, adjacent to the interstate highway. Parking structure along Port Washington Rd behind the store, shared with other businesses. No direct street access (entrance is around the corner of the building left of the photo).
@milwuakee08: I guess I hate the second option so much less! At least Trader Joe's is kind-of trying. To be fair, two businesses are trying to attract an entirely different type of a customer.
@med. "It's funny how people who often complain about big business killing small business are the same ones waiting in line at a Starbucks for their tripple Non-dairy vegan organic late."
What's your point doofus? Starbucks is a mother Theresa compared to Wal-Mart. Starbucks is self aware of their sheer size and have made a number of improvements in their business practices based on the criticism they've received over the years. The are almost an ethical corporation. That said, the anti-corporate mob members do stay away from shopping at Starbucks. America's taste for quality coffee has really improved in the last few decades. Most cities will have much better (locally owned) options for a good cup of java.
I just went off topic here, but med. your comment was truly half-assed. Try again.
@steelstuds, I don't think it's so much the type of customer, but more the volume of customers, and the city's ability to provide access to those customers. Businesses like Walmart are "regional", meaning they want to try to provide something for everyone in the city, which means that their location is somewhat irrelevant, as they aren't dependent as much on their local neighborhood. In fact, it's generally to their advantage to destroy the neighborhood they're in to make room for the rest of the city to come to them. On the other hand, a more "local" business like Starbucks depends less on the entire city coming to one location. I used the terms local and regional in this case not to describe where a business is headquartered, but who it serves.
@meds, I worked at a locally owned coffee shop all through college, and people would come in and say how much they hated Starbucks. I'd just smile and nod, because in the end, THEY ARE ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME. We bought things locally, just like Starbucks did, we also bought a lot of non-local stuff, just like Starbucks, we charged almost the same prices, provided almost the same products, and paid our employees the same low wages. Actually, Starbucks had a better health plan than my locally owned company.
milwaukee, I've actually been to that Trader Joes! That seems to be their urban M.O.: they have a streetfront location with storefront glazing at the sidewalk, but! the actually entry to the store is on the back with some surface parking, behind the building. That's exactly how the Philly location was, and the neighborhood made a huge hue and cry about the fact that there was no entrance ON the sidewalk - but TJ's company line seems to be that they can't have secure control at two points of entry, so they're keeping the only door at the parking lot.
Steelstud, If I was interested in "debating" with a total buffoon with nothing to contribute, I would come to you. Next.
Anyways,
On the topic of corporate giants taking over small business, it's all about being able to market something at a competitive price to pepole who are willing to go for it. And chances are, people in general will be willing to go to a Walmart in the city to get their goods rather than a more expensive place. It's just the nature of the beast. I'm not by any means anti-small business - I just think people have to know where to market themselves and how in an ever-changing business climate. In the city I live, people are more than willing to go to the local cafes not only because their coffee is better quality but the atmosphere is far better than a s-bucks. And the most important thing is that in an increasing competitive global market many of these kinds of small business have reinvented themselves and taken things to the next level so that they don'ty have to worry about Wallmat, Starbucks, and all those other places trying to steal their business.
there's a firm in MD designing a walmart in DC near a major school right now.
not a proponent of "urban walmart" however... the new model of walmart does not require property ownership- it's a 99 year lease by the building owner, as typical, with WM agreeing to fulfill a portion of that lease. the urban walmart is not the dark dingy type we all know... think of Whole Foods.
btw- i'm not a proponent of Whole Foods, either.
a bit 'o' long rambling histrionics about supermarkets:
they are supposed to replicate the variety of small food-stuff stores that once occurred in older (walkable) middle-class urban neighborhoods. You can still see this range of specialty food stores in places that never lost their middle-class patronage (especially common outside of the states).
in places that experienced a big drain on middle to upper-middle class purchasing power, these smaller stores couldn't exist without their higher-margin purchases. and since in the suburbs people drive everywhere, it makes sense for all of their stuff to be in one place - and often one big store. it really is all about convenience now as it was then (people don't like to waste a lot of time walking/driving everywhere - the small town I lived in for a few years there was one tiny grocery store where we'd get our staples - and quite a few other small places a short drive away to pick up veggies, eggs, milk, meat... however, if we wanted clothes or shoes we had to drive 45 minutes to the nearest big city. walmart sees this gap in the local small-town economies which is how they end up displacing the "mom and pop" stores).
the downside is that supermarkets and other big box stores, even though we think they have a lot of stuff, really don't have as wide a variety and quality as once existed in that dense urban neighborhood. for example, I can go to a fromagerie in paris and get anything from super cheap brie for the proletariat to ridiculously expensive truffle-infused Camembert for the bourgeoisie. but I know I'll just get some middle-of-the road chevre (out of several varieties) and a 50 cent mini-baguette and maybe a pear or apple around the corner - go to a parc and have a really nice $3 lunch. at walmart, I can get a stale baguette that costs $4 and one kind of crappy dry goat cheese that is $7 (if I'm lucky). I'd have to go well out of my way to buy good "fancy cheese" and decent fresh bread. it's not worth it to me because I'm already there for an hour and I just wasted $4 on gas. kraft singles and wonderbread aren't remotely close to what I wanted, but it still costs more than my quick lunch in paris. I'd have to stock up for the apocalypse for my trip to make any economic sense.
the problem in food deserts is that there aren't enough people with money to support the kind and variety of small places we all seem to fantasize about - and in the suburbs, the purchasing power of people who support stuff like fancy cheese places has to be much higher because it's a special trip, not a walk around the corner. so instead of one place able to specialize in one item and cater to a wide range of people due to their symbiotic relationships with the adjacent stores, you get fancy out-of-the-way places for rich people, "destination" shopping centers (designed for you to spend an entire day there, like you are vacation), and mediocre high-volume mega-marts for the rest of us (home depot falls into this latter category, btw). - and in poor urban neighborhoods the margins are so razor thin that corner stores need to sell lottery tickets and cigarettes to break even.
it's not so much about "marketing" for small business, it's about lot of things being in one place for convenience and the right mix and critical mass of economic groups patronizing the area - which is how malls work.
also - grocery stores can be a catalyst for neighborhood revival (and gentrification) in urban areas - especially if they play nice in the existing fabric. I think it would be ironic if walmart played this role - however, many urban neighborhoods aren't the poverty-stricken 3rd world countries that they were in the 80s... and I think walmart is simply following the money.
toaster, in South Philly it was common to see fresh produce vendors set up trucks near the big Catholic churches and sell fruits and veggies a couple-few days a week. It wasn't highest quality, and it wasn't cheap, but there's a captive audience of carless, non-affluent people in those neighborhoods that NEED fresh produce because nowhere within 2 miles is selling it in any other format.
I think a re-imagining of dense urban retail doesn't need to include big box stores. Pop-ups, mobile carts, and networked small shops tied together with one co-op type supply chain - that could all work.
Hey med. I may be a bafoon, but even this monkey's not dumb enough to fall for libertarian trappings of "it's all about free market economy man" that your family of slugs likes to repeat ad nauseam.
At some point a large corporation becomes powerful enough to directly influence political process, and instead of competing, they get to rewrite the rules of the game in their favor. Big-pharma, big-corn, auto industry are all guilty of this. The cost of doing business with Wal-Mart is much higher than what your bill comes out to. You are capable of grasping the concept of hidden cost right? That $19.95/day van rental is really closer to $100. That $99 iPhone is really $2K over the course of the contract, etc..Wal-Mart pricing works the same way too, only you don't get to see the final bill. Various levels of government end up picking up the tab.
I'm not defending their competition either, or merits of ma-n-pa centric economy. Wal-Mart's asshattery is well documented, and calling them out on it is more than fair game.
steelstuds - no need for name calling - med does bring up a good point that people will generally go where they perceive some kind of value (which includes both price and convenience - often one trumping the other) over some kind of social/economic injustice - unless it affects them personally or they are "educated" about it.
but you're also right that we often don't really comprehend the total cost of things.
"steelstuds - no need for name calling"
"Steelstud, If I was interested in "debating" with a total buffoon with nothing to contribute, I would come to you. Next." --med.
toaster: there is nothing better for getting your cardiac rate up (without any of that pesky exercising) than some playful name calling. It's good for you!
I understand it's impossible to be on top of all issues in this very complex world. But when so many entities are trying to fuck you over, I applaud all effort at trying to find out what's going on.
What really gets me though, is willful ignorance. That 'har, har can't hear you anymore' attitude. med. may be in minority on this topic here, but his attitude is much more prevalent in general population. It's a shame really. We all deserve a better societal model than the one envisioned by the Waltons.
Big box retail won't work where density allows for true competition. Big Box retail is dependent on car culture, won't work with pedestrians for whom going next door doesn't mean turning on the car and waiting for 3 turn signals.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.