First of all, I'm a conservative. Yet, I'm also an urban watchdog.

I used to like Walmart when it was called "Wal*Mart." Back then, there was only two stores: diminishing regular ones and Supercenters fronted by big ole parking lots. But ever since liberals have started objecting to Wal*Mart building Supercenters NEAR downtowns (e. g. the South Side in Chicago), things have gone downhill.

They should have allowed Wal*Mart to execute this plan. Thanks to their interference, Wal*Mart, with no fault of their own (they have to make profit) tried to go trendy with another plan, to appeal to those who hate it. They changed their logo to something incredibly lame, and rolled out "Neighborhood Markets" and "Marketside" stores. Instead of opening NEAR downtowns, Walmart wants to open IN downtowns with these store formats.

Frankly, I don't see this fit. While downtown is a place for big business to show their capitalistic potential, Walmart is a sub/exurban store, and should not pursue these midget discount stores. The South Side, Bronx, Boyle Heights, or wherever else are appropriate because it would cater to the immediate residents. And big stores. While people stopped most this, Walmart managed to build one small store at the edge of Chicago, and it's pathetic.

Why aren't liberals fighting these new store ventures with as much passion as they did for inner city stores? Now I have to fight the new "Walmart" and people who caused it to morph from a decent store to a strange, trying to be upscale, painted ugly earth tone colors place.

Hopefully one day lower Manhattan will be one big Walmart, midtown will be one big skyscraper, Harlem will be one big condo building, and Central Park will be one big parking lot.

LOL.

I think the issue is to have no issue with whatever business, provided they are legal, open up shops in town. At least not in a local scale.

Wal Mart dominates American logistics for grocery and much more. They can and do extract the better deals from suppliers. Why should people pay an indirect tax (on the form of artificially higher prices that sustains local shop owners = welfare) instead of being able to shop where prices are lower because they can crush every supplier not only in US, but pretty much in the World?

As much as I have concerns about cartelization and excessive market power, I think it is not up to local cities to "fight" Wal Mart. If they want to open a shop on Broadway, New York, NY, so be it.

liberals can't fight something that offers people choice to shop where they want - one cannot stand in the way and tell people not to do something or go somewhere - many towns cities have tried to keep walmart out and those that do end up with a store across the street out of its jurisdiction

If you were a proper conservative you would oppose all large big box stores.

If you were a proper conservative you would oppose all large big box stores.

In what basis, save for an histrionic version of late 19th Century localism?

Its simple.

Large Wal-Mart supercenters in urban environments can be a bad fit. Enormous parking lots spawn traffic and break up walkable streets.The stores themselves also have only one front and one back, and that is a constraint in siting one on a small lot(you don't want the truck docks behind your house with backup alarms all night long, do you?).

Clearly Wal-Mart realizes this and just wants to penetrate a new market by creating a new store format that avoids drama. It's not a big deal. Large format retailers in urban environments can be a good thing in that they provide cheaper and healthier(by virtue of selection, such as real produce aisles) food. Not having a real grocery store in an urban neighborhood even a chain can be a bad thing, and many observers of public health issues have noted that "mom and pop" stores mostly sell junk food, cigarettes, and booze at high prices.

I guess its political if you are absolutely opposed to any land use regulation whatsoever, and you are still making the flawed assumption that Wal-Mart would prefer to plop down a Supercenter on every single site no matter the conditions.

As weird as this statement sounds I don't think its reasonable to equate "liberal" with "urban" necessarily or put a political spin on it. You don't think there are private developers and real estate investment people out there who want to cater to the market for urban living and services and to do that have to engage in big-picture thinking? Its business.

In what basis, save for an histrionic version of late 19th Century localism?

As a conservative i favour classic city structure above modernistic sprawl. Streets and blocks with small shops on the bottom floor flats above and some department stores at central locations.

In what basis, save for an histrionic version of late 19th Century localism?

Areas with large big box stores tend to put the smaller retailers out of business (or discourage them from implanting themselves there); therefore the main sources of jobs for people are as employees. Places that encourage diverse smaller shops (i.e. that can compete without needing to keep up with Walmart's huge advantage in economies of scale) lead to more people owning their own business.

There are places for big-box stores, and places where they should not be allowed to implant themselves as they will turn an area of multiple privately-run businesses into an area of only one privately owned business.

Right. "Workfare" is nice and conservative, but welfare is for bleeding heart liberals, I guess. :nuts:

The smart thing to do is to make lemons out of lemonade. If small shops are being put out of business by large retailers, than what makes sense is for the people who were once employed by them to engage in some other economic activity. This is progress, because the large retailers are still providing the same goods and services for cheaper plus whatever productive things the former small shop employees are engaged in. Imagine if this never happened at any point in history, we'll all still be primitive farmers or nomads complaining how this "civilization" thing is not worth it no matter how cool this new technology called "pottery" is.

Ideally, in my perfect world, what there would be is a unrestrained free market combined with a uniform income tax that redistributes wealth once it is created. People do whatever they are good at to make money, while the government provides everyone with a good standard of living so that society is equal. This way, as changes in the economy leave some people high and dry, they still have a chance. I also think if you shifted the stakes around, where there is simultaneously a safety net but also fewer rules that may keep people safe from bad decisions but limit opportunity, there'd be more ambitious people willing to try new things.

The real world is more about knowing how power works, I think. You have understand the likes of Jimmy Hoffa, Karl Rove, Robert Moses, etc.

^Making lemons out of lemonade sounds physically impossible. :lol:

^^ Robert Moses is a personal hero of mine, the way he just trolled over any backward opposition to progress in NYC is remarkable! He shielded his avant-grade plans from political rife of the corrupt local administration of NYC and, borrowing money from the private market, build an amazing set of infrastructure works that is the backbone of NY's road transportation.

Making lemons out of lemonade sounds physically impossible
reverse engineering...

Right. "Workfare" is nice and conservative, but welfare is for bleeding heart liberals, I guess. :nuts:

The smart thing to do is to make lemons out of lemonade. If small shops are being put out of business by large retailers, than what makes sense is for the people who were once employed by them to engage in some other economic activity. This is progress, because the large retailers are still providing the same goods and services for cheaper plus whatever productive things the former small shop employees are engaged in. Imagine if this never happened at any point in history, we'll all still be primitive farmers or nomads complaining how this "civilization" thing is not worth it no matter how cool this new technology called "pottery" is.

Ideally, in my perfect world, what there would be is a unrestrained free market combined with a uniform income tax that redistributes wealth once it is created. People do whatever they are good at to make money, while the government provides everyone with a good standard of living so that society is equal. This way, as changes in the economy leave some people high and dry, they still have a chance. I also think if you shifted the stakes around, where there is simultaneously a safety net but also fewer rules that may keep people safe from bad decisions but limit opportunity, there'd be more ambitious people willing to try new things.

The real world is more about knowing how power works, I think. You have understand the likes of Jimmy Hoffa, Karl Rove, Robert Moses, etc.

Its not progress because the only reason that the large retailers can exist is modernistic city planning and the modernictis planning is on the way out. Modernism is an idea that didnt work, it created sprawl, car dependancie and wastes huge amounts of land. Clinging to a flawed idea from the 1950s is not progress.

signature
Jerseys outlet (http://www.jerseysera.com/)
Jerseys Basketball (http://www.jerseysera.com/)
Jerseys Football (http://www.jerseysera.com/)
Jerseys clothing (http://www.jerseysera.com/)

^Making lemons out of lemonade sounds physically impossible.

haha analogy fail. You know what I mean.

Some very general comments.

We should distinguish between "conservative" (clings to some former or currently existing situation as opposed to current developments) and "libertarian" (desires to let the market promote welfare except wherever possible).

In general, a libertarian is going to have no problem with Walmart; it's just a matter of the better system killing the old pretty good one. Smaller retailers have to specialize in better service, unique products, or other customer benefits or find some new business.

However, the problem lies in externalities. In urban contexts they can include an effect on livability, traffic, appearance, type of person attracted, or pretty much anything that people like or object to. Libertarians normally like to fully analyze externalities, since these are failures of the market system and must be accounted for in determining the net benefit from any given activity. Both positive and negative externalities need to be looked at.

If I believe the Walmart is loathesome, that is an externality. If I can get my friends to agree, then we can demand payment from Walmart for ruining our neighborhood. Since this is impractical due to differences of opinion on amount of damage, we are more likely to use the political process to reach an arrangement that is less than optimal to Walmart (maybe reduced size) and to ourselves (say, allow them, but with undeground parking).

It's messy, but it's about as close to free-market as you can get when externalities are very substantial. Note that this is a very local process and should not be handled by central government, federal or state.

If you were a proper conservative you would oppose all large big box stores.

Agree with you. I have also marked that most conservative guys oppose all big stores.

As much as I have concerns about cartelization and excessive market power, I think it is not up to local cities to "fight" Wal Mart. If they want to open a shop on Broadway, New York, NY, so be it.

how does this logic make sense? :nuts:

i dont think it's up to you to "fight" walmart from building in your backyard and surrounding your house with their sea of asphalt... if they want to, so be it.

^^ That is why there are so many subdivisions with Homeowner Association bylaws, usually surrounded by open (zoning-wise) areas where non-residential activities can happen. Best of both worlds: you will not get a giant Walmart next to you, but Walmart will not be hassled (or Home Depot, or Best But, or whomever else) if they want to buy in the nearer strip mall. A "draconian" set of bylaws will guarantee residential areas will be only residential, without anycommerce - and that is a very positive thing. Then, you have a leveled field for competition, without politics mingling with it.

In the UK, large supermarket chains such as Tesco and Sainsbury's have a lot of city centre small shops. Even ASDA (Walmart) does on a lesser scale

A "draconian" set of bylaws will guarantee residential areas will be only residential, without anycommerce - and that is a very positive thing. Then, you have a leveled field for competition, without politics mingling with it.

Why would that be a positive thing? Why build suburbs when you should build city. A city needs to be mixed to function properly.

Why would that be a positive thing? Why build suburbs when you should build city. A city needs to be mixed to function properly.

You need commerce, just not outside - or worse - below your house. It creates conflicts, it brings people looking for different stuff into your street. Better to have each part of the city serving its own functions: commercial, industrial, services/offices, residence, parks, institutional/government.

If you have strictly segregated zoning (in terms of function of buildings), you greatly reduce potential of conflicts about what shops set business there. And it greatly reduces traffic of non-residents in any residential street, increasing - passively - the quietness and privacy of its residents, who can always look for some action in a nearby commercial/leisure are or shopping mall.

The only flaw with your logic, Suburbanist, is you assume everyone thinks like you do (from what I've seen). I know countless classmates who either live in the suburbs or have lived in the suburbs their entire lives, and they absolutely hate it. I'm fortunate that I don't live in a suburb. Driving five minutes to the supermarket isn't the same as walking five minutes to the local grocery store. I'd much rather make that walk, regardless of the weather, than have to drive.

You need commerce, just not outside - or worse - below your house. It creates conflicts, it brings people looking for different stuff into your street. Better to have each part of the city serving its own functions: commercial, industrial, services/offices, residence, parks, institutional/government.

If you have strictly segregated zoning (in terms of function of buildings), you greatly reduce potential of conflicts about what shops set business there. And it greatly reduces traffic of non-residents in any residential street, increasing - passively - the quietness and privacy of its residents, who can always look for some action in a nearby commercial/leisure are or shopping mall.

In what way does it create conflict? Why is it a conflict that what you need to buy is close to you? Why is there a conflict that you live and work in the same area? You need to let go of the 1950s.

It's more of a conflict to spend 10 dollars of gas for a bag of cookies.

You need commerce, just not outside - or worse - below your house. It creates conflicts, it brings people looking for different stuff into your street. Better to have each part of the city serving its own functions: commercial, industrial, services/offices, residence, parks, institutional/government.

If you have strictly segregated zoning (in terms of function of buildings), you greatly reduce potential of conflicts about what shops set business there. And it greatly reduces traffic of non-residents in any residential street, increasing - passively - the quietness and privacy of its residents, who can always look for some action in a nearby commercial/leisure are or shopping mall.

Please don't plan any cities. Please!

Why would that be a positive thing? Why build suburbs when you should build city. A city needs to be mixed to function properly.

Not everyone wants to reside above a shop, a hardware store, a restaurant, near a train station, near a post office, near a gasoline station............. but suburbia has its share of commerce. ONLY our residential area is separated from the busier commericial zoned areas. I prefer it this way. I want to be able to go home after work and not deal with the same $h*t that I deal with on a daily basis going to work and while at work.

The only flaw with your logic, Suburbanist, is you assume everyone thinks like you do (from what I've seen). I know countless classmates who either live in the suburbs or have lived in the suburbs their entire lives, and they absolutely hate it. I'm fortunate that I don't live in a suburb. Driving five minutes to the supermarket isn't the same as walking five minutes to the local grocery store. I'd much rather make that walk, regardless of the weather, than have to drive.

I didn't say cities should be all like I described. Indeed, real estate developers should be more or less able to provide houses buyers want to buy, in whatever arrangements markets prefer. In any city there will be different preferences of urban arrangements, and there should be different zoning patterns within major cities to allow for that diversity. The tricky issue, however, is that some people who like the "vitality of street life" under their noises with all it brings (good and bad) to be kept at expense of freedom of choice from others. I couldn't tell you how many times I read some report/essay of urban planners whining that suburban development is "spoiling xyz downtown of its centrality functions" or other b.s.

I don't want to force people to live in strictly residential areas, but I also don't want to be forced not to live in one of those areas because others think my errands should be part of their street life. So I raise my eyebrows whenever I see/read a study proposing to limit some strip mall as to "divert people into already consolidated areas within a regeneration project". That logic assumes citizens would "owe" other citizens the obligation to walk to the grocery shop so it increases pedestrian traffic which would make streets safer - and I despise this kind of "neighborhood civil duty" as some put.

As for me, my utility ratio of walking time : driving time is like 1 : 3 (I'd rather drive 3 times longer than walk) for a simple reason: driving absurdly expands the # of retailing sq. feet I can reach, by the only reason a car can reasonably travel at avg. speeds of 20-30 mph in an urban environment while an human carrying a package can't go much over 2-3mph. It's a 10-fold increase on the reach once I sit behind the wheels. Sure others will prefer things different, and that is why different housing patterns are needed: to accommodate different wishes, preferences and expectations - as long as you can pay for them, of course!

In what way does it create conflict? Why is it a conflict that what you need to buy is close to you? Why is there a conflict that you live and work in the same area? You need to let go of the 1950s.

It creates conflict in the sense that residents are much more sensible to the effects of different non-residential activities 100 yards from their house than 1 mile away or more. A big parking lot, traffic, some noise, bright lights, delivery trucks arriving early morning, certain level of smell and so will not be such a burden if it happens reasonably far from any other houses. Whether a local bar is becoming a city-wide known club, expanding and with live music, can spur huge litigation if there are residents living nearby, but likely none if the club/bar is located at an office park where only nightlife party goers are circulating at night.

No matter how romantic "smart growth" and "new urbanism" concepts might sound, the fact is that at 21st Century we have vastly increased expectations like a sound-less/smell-less environment to live in our houses, and commercial activities, by their own nature, are disruptive to that in a certain sense. That creates conflict and put residents at odds with local commerce, sometimes with strong doses of localism, like opposing a new store only because it is Starbucks, not the old filthy restaurant whose owners lived nearby for 40 years.

As for the "I hate the suburbs" crowd on SSC, I think it has mostly to do with demographics of SSC. Younger users, not yet totally financially independent, without a family of their own (like spouse and children), will not make most of what functionally segregated housing can offer. It's a matter of age. As people get older, get family and get money, priorities shift. It's natural that teenagers would usually prefer to live all in a gigantic Manhattan so they can easily mingle together all day long without having their parents to drive them (and by doing so keeping a check on their activities). But it is an age-issue only :)

First of all, I'm a conservative. Yet, I'm also an urban watchdog.

I used to like Walmart when it was called "Wal*Mart." Back then, there was only two stores: diminishing regular ones and Supercenters fronted by big ole parking lots. But ever since liberals have started objecting to Wal*Mart building Supercenters NEAR downtowns (e. g. the South Side in Chicago), things have gone downhill.

They should have allowed Wal*Mart to execute this plan. Thanks to their interference, Wal*Mart, with no fault of their own (they have to make profit) tried to go trendy with another plan, to appeal to those who hate it. They changed their logo to something incredibly lame, and rolled out "Neighborhood Markets" and "Marketside" stores. Instead of opening NEAR downtowns, Walmart wants to open IN downtowns with these store formats.

Frankly, I don't see this fit. While downtown is a place for big business to show their capitalistic potential, Walmart is a sub/exurban store, and should not pursue these midget discount stores. The South Side, Bronx, Boyle Heights, or wherever else are appropriate because it would cater to the immediate residents. And big stores. While people stopped most this, Walmart managed to build one small store at the edge of Chicago, and it's pathetic.

Why aren't liberals fighting these new store ventures with as much passion as they did for inner city stores? Now I have to fight the new "Walmart" and people who caused it to morph from a decent store to a strange, trying to be upscale, painted ugly earth tone colors place.

Why do all American related/started threads have to bring up some kind of grudge between 'liberals' and 'conservatives'?

Please tell me all Americans aren't this polarised and ridiculous nowadays....

It creates conflict in the sense that residents are much more sensible to the effects of different non-residential activities 100 yards from their house than 1 mile away or more. A big parking lot, traffic, some noise, bright lights, delivery trucks arriving early morning, certain level of smell and so will not be such a burden if it happens reasonably far from any other houses. Whether a local bar is becoming a city-wide known club, expanding and with live music, can spur huge litigation if there are residents living nearby, but likely none if the club/bar is located at an office park where only nightlife party goers are circulating at night.

No matter how romantic "smart growth" and "new urbanism" concepts might sound, the fact is that at 21st Century we have vastly increased expectations like a sound-less/smell-less environment to live in our houses, and commercial activities, by their own nature, are disruptive to that in a certain sense. That creates conflict and put residents at odds with local commerce, sometimes with strong doses of localism, like opposing a new store only because it is Starbucks, not the old filthy restaurant whose owners lived nearby for 40 years.

As for the "I hate the suburbs" crowd on SSC, I think it has mostly to do with demographics of SSC. Younger users, not yet totally financially independent, without a family of their own (like spouse and children), will not make most of what functionally segregated housing can offer. It's a matter of age. As people get older, get family and get money, priorities shift. It's natural that teenagers would usually prefer to live all in a gigantic Manhattan so they can easily mingle together all day long without having their parents to drive them (and by doing so keeping a check on their activities). But it is an age-issue only :)

First of all, the reason why a there are large parkinglots at suburban shopping centres are because they are suburban. If they were departmentstores there would be much less need for parkinglots. You would just need to be located close to a metrostation/tram station/etc.

Second, you dont use large big rigs to deliver food to an inner city shop.

Third, sound proofing has come a long way. A properly constructed building will not suffer from noise pollution.

Fourth, this is not about age. City housing is more expensive for a reason it is more desirable. Its the young people who are forced to live in the suburbs because they cant afford to live in the inner city.

Its the young people who are forced to live in the suburbs because they cant afford to live in the inner city.

Of course, all of this discussion assumes that one is constrained by one's income/wealth. It's natural: you can't live where you can't afford it. There is no right to live anywhere without the means to pay for it. So I've got no problems with that.

Of course, all of this discussion assumes that one is constrained by one's income/wealth. It's natural: you can't live where you can't afford it. There is no right to live anywhere without the means to pay for it. So I've got no problems with that.

Of course you have to be able to pay for it, but what Im saying is that this shows that living in a city is more desirable then living in a isolated suburb. Therfor we should build a lot more city than suburb. I see you chose to ignore the all the other arguments that dont fit with your world view.

^^ There are factors overlapping there. Land itself is way more expensive in build-up areas (because they can be built up...) than in areas set for stand-alone houses. This, alone, will prevent apartments and flats to cost, in a $/sq. feet basis, to ever approach the costs of equivalent (in terms of quality of materials and decorating) of stand-alone houses.

^^ There are factors overlapping there. Land itself is way more expensive in build-up areas (because they can be built up...) than in areas set for stand-alone houses. This, alone, will prevent apartments and flats to cost, in a $/sq. feet basis, to ever approach the costs of equivalent (in terms of quality of materials and decorating) of stand-alone houses.

The land is expensive because ita built .up, its not built up because its expensive. A single family house can also be urban those houses are expensive aswell, you just need to plan the area properly. Modernist planning just isnt efficient.

You need commerce, just not outside - or worse - below your house. It creates conflicts, it brings people looking for different stuff into your street. Better to have each part of the city serving its own functions: commercial, industrial, services/offices, residence, parks, institutional/government.

If you have strictly segregated zoning (in terms of function of buildings), you greatly reduce potential of conflicts about what shops set business there. And it greatly reduces traffic of non-residents in any residential street, increasing - passively - the quietness and privacy of its residents, who can always look for some action in a nearby commercial/leisure are or shopping mall.

How does commerce outside the house create conflict? People coming into the street looking for stuff don't bother me... or anyone else for that matter. Even in the relatively suburban area I live now the convenience store down the street doesn't create conflict... it creates jobs for local bored teenagers and a place to go for old ladies looking for a pint of milk. The local yokels certainly aren't perched on the roofs of the houses looking to shoot at anyone stupid enough to drive (or even...shock horror... walk!) into the street who aint from round these here parts.

You seem to be making a very crude exaggeration about peoples expectations... of course people want privacy, but only for the truly private areas of their lives. It will vary from person to person of course but everyone has a side to them which is attracted to diversity and interest to some degree. A truly successful (residential) street or neighbourhood should be:

a) close enough to/contain enough activity and diversity (read: commerce) that it does not stagnate, but not so much that it 'crowds out' the residents.
b) have a clear delineation between public and private, so that anyone can 'retreat' if and when they wish. This line can pass through buildings... as long as appropriate use is considered and proper soundproofing used then giving over ground floors to some commercial/work uses in densely built areas can be a massive asset to a community.
c) have a variety of housing types and, if possible, some provision for lower wealth housing (this should be easier in new build areas in outer tracts of a city where land is cheaper)

Such a neighborhood, whether built for foot or car, suburban or urban, will attract people who want to live there. A large swath of uniform housing will always attract only those looking for a cheap house.

I think it depends on how wide one's private area is. Mine is like 2 cm. I cant stand living in suburbia. A flat would be much cheaper to buy or rent for me that to live in a house. I simply hate working in the garden, I'm a city dweller, not a peasant, for christ's sake. Flats are much safer, have more and better cummunity.

I dont care if others want to live in suburbai. Just leave your car at home:okay: I dont want to see and smell and hear it in my street.:banana:

I dont care if others want to live in suburbai. Just leave your car at home:okay: I dont want to see and smell and hear it in my street.:banana:

Driving a car is tantamount to freedom of movement in an industrialized society. IF you don't like cars, you can find a very, very poor country and move there! Same if you don't like electricity, sanitation, magnetic fields created by cell phone towers, noise from planes overflowing your house and so... In any case, modern (from 2008 Euro 5) cars are almost smell-free. And electrical cars will take care of the noise, to the point some countries are considering require them to have some artificial noise-producing device to keep pedestrians, cyclists and others aware of them.

Blame the trucks, if that is the case.

So walking is bad, cars are ok? Man, you are very weird.

So walking is bad, cars are ok? Man, you are very weird.

Cars will not drive if there is nothing of interest on your street. What I want is to promote passive self-segregation of functions. If you live in a cul-de-sac, hardly anyone will drive, walk, bike or skate there if one has no business to do within the 10-30 houses on that dead end street.

um we are in the modern times now - your antiquated thinking belongs 60 years ago

anyway there is a costco below condo towers here, as well as apartments above a home depot and a large winners (TJ/TK Maxx) and a large grocery store and more like that are planned people love the convenience and it helps reduced trips to outer areas to visit such stores where they are typically found

I dont care if others want to live in suburbai. Just leave your car at home:okay: I dont want to see and smell and hear it in my street.:banana:


What are you gonna do about it, especially to those city dwellers who own cars. Hehehe.:nuts: By the way when I visited the cities in Germany all I can smell was car fumes. I don't know about other countries and their regulations regarding car exhaust at least in the United States we have yearly smog check before we can get our cars registered, if it fails it is not legally allowed to be driven on US roads without proper documentation and without passing the smog test.

This is stupid......just sayin

Somehow, I guess, this thread has made to be about suburbs Vs city...
Its all in a persons opinion...no argument...

And i have never seen any actual statistics or data regarding large supermarkets such as wal mart putting others out of business.

What are you gonna do about it, especially to those city dwellers who own cars. Hehehe.:nuts: By the way when I visited the cities in Germany all I can smell was car fumes. I don't know about other countries and their regulations regarding car exhaust at least in the United States we have yearly smog check before we can get our cars registered, if it fails it is not legally allowed to be driven on US roads without proper documentation and without passing the smog test.

This is what is done about it:

http://m.blog.hu/ho/homar/image/201002/rok4.jpg

This sign means you cant go faster than 10kms/h, and pedestrians have de facto priority anywhere on the road.

^^^^You do not make sense at all!!! :ohno: Pedestrians whether in the city or the suburbs should be given right of way especially in crosswalks. By the way, in the suburbs children play in the front yard, back yard and parks. If they happen to be be on the streets, drivers keep an eye on them and slow down all the time. In the United States, speed limits in school zones and everywhere else should be obeyed or risk the consequence.

I hear that speed limits are very low in the USA, generally speaking.

I hear that speed limits are very low in the USA, generally speaking.

This thread has been hijacked and should stick to the original post. I really don't care much whether people think the speed limit in the US is slow or too fast on the roadways. Back to the topic.

This is stupid......just sayin

Somehow, I guess, this thread has made to be about suburbs Vs city...
Its all in a persons opinion...no argument...

And i have never seen any actual statistics or data regarding large supermarkets such as wal mart putting others out of business.

they put smaller businesses out of business or make it harder for small business - walmart has the power to make deals with suppliers so that walmart can get special models or packages - ie they often get special etxra DVD deals on movies... buy this movie get the special 2nd disc only at walmart - target gets those kind of deals too though

they can also make deals to become the only distributor of such and such but home depot does that too - they can approach a manufacturer and make a deal that they are the only retailer to carry a certain product or brand

and if you own a store and go to the manufacturer and say you want to carry whatever it is and they say they only deal with walmart... and they can't deal with you - that can hurt a smaller business in that it just can't offer what customers might want

I've never noticed businesses go under but i live in a city and its apparently bad in smaller towns when walmart moves in

all large chains have the power to really make exclusive deals for products and in the long run it can affect other businesses not able to get stock but than it also forces them to change their offerings which can be win win too

Their pressure to be cheap also results in poor quality and offshoring, initially for them and then for anyone who wants to compete on price for certain product types. This is true of much of the big box retail world, but walmart is the worst.

BTW, an article recently, I forget where (WSJ?), talked about stagnant sales recently for walmart. But they said "basic" clothing was doing ok. Specifically socks and "plus size apparel."

like said no statistics. Never really seen a store go under due to a wal-mart move in.

I've always seen the same products at wal mart as in any other stores.Wal mart is only cheaper in some ways...say their generic brand, but every store has its own generic brand.
The small stores make business by selling specialty items, if they sell what wal mart is selling than odds are it is going to be the same price, but they have the convience factor.

And - I really like Wal mart.... & Sams Club. Target is just plain expensive.

I'm not going to look up statistics for you. But it's certainly an obvious point to anyone with a business, economics, or city planning background (who's being honest). The pattern of walmart moving in and causing many closures is typical. Some say bordering on universal. It's also part of walmart's business plan.

like said no statistics. Never really seen a store go under due to a wal-mart move in.

I've always seen the same products at wal mart as in any other stores.Wal mart is only cheaper in some ways...say their generic brand, but every store has its own generic brand.
The small stores make business by selling specialty items, if they sell what wal mart is selling than odds are it is going to be the same price, but they have the convience factor.

And - I really like Wal mart.... & Sams Club. Target is just plain expensive.

Target is expensive in the USA...?

Fark... here in Australia it's dirt cheap. Maybe that's because we've been spared the wrath of Walmart thus far.

Target is more expensive than Walmart but in general has higher quality clothing and other items. They are hardly "expensive" in an absolute sense.

Target is just plain expensive.

their prices are nearly identical, but target is way less white trash

Target is more expensive than Walmart but in general has higher quality clothing and other items. They are hardly "expensive" in an absolute sense.

Who in their right mind would buy clothes in a supermarket anyway?

And who would buy the "special" versions of the brands walmart sells, like cheapified Levis?

Well, you can argue about quality but you can't argue about success. Walmart sells about $1/2 trillion per year and Target is number 2.

I'm not sure about their clothing revenues but I'm going to guess they're higher than Balmain and Balenciaga combined.

Higher than two companies I've never heard of? Impressive! Just being a smartass of course.

Yes, a lot of people will buy the worst crap imaginable if they think they're getting a deal. Middle America loves America except when it comes to offshoring their retail dollars and so on.

Higher than two companies I've never heard of? Impressive! Just being a smartass of course.

Yes, a lot of people will buy the worst crap imaginable if they think they're getting a deal. Middle America loves America except when it comes to offshoring their retail dollars and so on.

Me, a smartass? Well, could be.

But the only point was that Walmart (and Target) are not aiming at the luxury market so it doesn't make much sense to criticize them for quality unless you mean even at their price level they have bad qualilty. In any event, their marketing teams will determine what works and will adjust.

I meant that I was being a smartass.

From what I understand, walmart's quality is bad even at their prices. Poor materials, poorly put together, and not similar to what's typical for the same brands at other stores. And mostly shipped from low quality foreign sweatshops.

From my quick observations, I can't disagree. Target is better. But there are all kinds of markets out there and maybe they can money near the bottom. Depends on how well you judge the consumer.

I shop at Walmart, Target, Kmart the rest of the big box retailers. I don't shop at Walmart all the time simply because it has lower prices. I go to all the other stores with the same frequency as I do at Walmart. I buy products that area made in the USA as much as products that are manufactured elsewhere. I don't mind having a Walmart nearby.

This is stupid......just sayin

Somehow, I guess, this thread has made to be about suburbs Vs city...
Its all in a persons opinion...no argument...

And i have never seen any actual statistics or data regarding large supermarkets such as wal mart putting others out of business.
I would guess it's more the impact of large out-of-town outlets on city centres. Just as markets get a collective benefit from customers browsing stall-to-stall, the passing trade is an important part of a city centre shop's custom. As more go out of town to shop, their business descreases.


Low quality clothing isn't a huge issue for a lot of people. Some people just would rather buy three £5 shirts rather than one £15 one. The £15 one might be better made and last longer, but they'd have to wear the £15 one three times as often.

People just have a crowbar of separation between they stuf they have for when they want to look good, and stuff they wear most of the time, which only has to look reasonable.

Well I've defended big box retail on principal, but I will admit I think walmart stores blow. Paradoxically, despite the size of your typical walmart store, I have walked out of one for the third time straight without finding what I needed just the other day. They seem have a terrible selection of merchandise, IMO.

I needed to buy some cheap khaki colored slacks for a part time job. Okay..so does walmart have any, at all? Nope. They had some grayish men's dress pants that had a stupid looking waist, and that's it. I want to buy some asian style noodles in the grocery section. Do they have some? Yet again, not really.

Now, if I wanted to buy a 5 gallon tub of nacho cheese, some red XXXL t-shirts to start a new street gang, and a $29 DVD player, man, wally world would be my go-to place.

These stores are huge, what gives? A nicer mainstream grocery retailer like a Safeway or Krogers that is a third the size has better food selection, and a discount/middling place like Kohls or Bealls has more clothing. And, like most people in the year 2010, I buy electronics and things like that online almost exclusively. If it doesn't have to be tried on or it won't go bad, as I always say.

I do shop at big box stores a lot, but there's just not good reason to go to the wm, and the fact that there isn't one close to me just compounds this decision.

Well I've defended big box retail on principal, but I will admit I think walmart stores blow. Paradoxically, despite the size of your typical walmart store, I have walked out of one for the third time straight without finding what I needed just the other day. They seem have a terrible selection of merchandise, IMO.

I needed to buy some cheap khaki colored slacks for a part time job. Okay..so does walmart have any, at all? Nope. They had some grayish men's dress pants that had a stupid looking waist, and that's it. I want to buy some asian style noodles in the grocery section. Do they have some? Yet again, not really.

Now, if I wanted to buy a 5 gallon tub of nacho cheese, some red XXXL t-shirts to start a new street gang, and a $29 DVD player, man, wally world would be my go-to place.

These stores are huge, what gives? A nicer mainstream grocery retailer like a Safeway or Krogers that is a third the size has better food selection, and a discount/middling place like Kohls or Bealls has more clothing. And, like most people in the year 2010, I buy electronics and things like that online almost exclusively. If it doesn't have to be tried on or it won't go bad, as I always say.

I do shop at big box stores a lot, but there's just not good reason to go to the wm, and the fact that there isn't one close to me just compounds this decision.

Who goes to walmart for clothing?? That was your first mistake. Also walmart doesn't sell 5 gallons of nacho cheese, maybe sams clubs would. There selection is just as good if not better than my local grocery store and walmarts prices are way better so I almost only shop at walmart for everyday items(toothpaste, extension cords, razors, etc) and food
I'm anti walmart for the way they treat their employees (worked at two different supercenters as summer jobs) and their suppliers(yet I still shop there since its cheaper), but you can't expect a store that thrives on high volume goods to have a specific type of dress sock. Thats why specialty stores like radio shack or exist.

^^ Robert Moses is a personal hero of mine, the way he just trolled over any backward opposition to progress in NYC is remarkable! He shielded his avant-grade plans from political rife of the corrupt local administration of NYC and, borrowing money from the private market, build an amazing set of infrastructure works that is the backbone of NY's road transportation.
Except one...and she is my personal hero.
Who goes to walmart for clothing?? That was your first mistake. Also walmart doesn't sell 5 gallons of nacho cheese, maybe sams clubs would. There selection is just as good if not better than my local grocery store and walmarts prices are way better so I almost only shop at walmart for everyday items(toothpaste, extension cords, razors, etc) and food
I'm anti walmart for the way they treat their employees (worked at two different supercenters as summer jobs) and their suppliers(yet I still shop there since its cheaper), but you can't expect a store that thrives on high volume goods to have a specific type of dress sock. Thats why specialty stores like radio shack or exist.
Well Walmart has some pretty awesome T-shirts sometimes. I dunno--I usually don't go there by choice anymore, since I kinda prefer Target as my hypermarket, and Burlington Coat Factory, as my discount department store, of choice.

Still, Walmart's H Street proposal is pretty nice and I would like to see something like that become a new urban paradigm.

(This bad boy. (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=5076957&postcount=6))
http://beyonddc.com/log/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/hst500.jpg

i think some of their efforts to scale down for inner city lots arent too bad.as a previous poster alluded to many of the big box chains in the UK manage it quite successfully. I listened to an interesting podcast on this topic by JH Kunstler