Retail
Wal-Mart, urban design, Main Street, jobs, and eye care
Wal-Mart is planning four stores in the District, in areas varying in walkability from dense New Jersey and H Streets, NW to Brightwood and East Capitol to the very auto-oriented New York Avenue.
Photo by Fernando Stankuns on Flickr.
Lydia DePillis has stayed on top of one question on the minds of many who care about walkable development: could these Wal-Marts be friendly to the urban landscape, or just more "Sprawl-Mart"?
So far, Wal-Mart has rarely built good urban models. It takes some lobbying for them to sacrifice surface parking and embrace multi-story buildings (see this rendering of the Wal-Mart planned in Baltimore City), despite the way a company of such magnitude ought to at least fake an interest in good urban building practices.
Of course, Wal-Mart's impact will go far beyond the built environment. Will it be good or bad for DC?
Wal-Mart forces suppliers to cut their prices down to the bone, which negatively effects the national and international economy. Wal-Mart isn't "Main Street"-friendly, and a healthy, diverse commercial corridor is important to the vitality of a dense, urban neighborhood.
My largest concern is that Wal-Mart will obliterate any efforts to jump-start a hyper-local economy. Empty storefronts are a big issue. In working in Anacostia, I've realized that getting a business into a formerly-empty space makes people feel good about their neighborhood. ANC 8C commissioner William Ellis had hoped Wal-Mart would look at Howard Road, by the Anacostia Metro, because of the 295/395 access. It's fortunate that's not one of the sites since it would also stall the renaissance that is, albeit slowly, finally looking possible for Good Hope Road and Martin Luther King Boulevard.
Many individuals that I've spoken with in Anacostia are interested in seeing their commercial corridor turn into more than empty storefronts (of which there are more than a few). But, Wal-Mart is not going to fill up any existing empty spaces. It's going to plunk itself down somewhere with plenty of yardage and make people come to it. Wal-Mart makes you feel good about saving money, but it's not your neighbor.
In marginalized communities, banks consider necessary loans too high-risk to grant, or the entrepreneur thinks there won't be a strong enough customer base. The presence of Wal-Mart could alleviate those concerns. But, it could also singlehandedly quash organic growth in the area. This could be most problematic in the location planned for Georgia and Missouri Avenues, an area where Wal-Mart could leave empty many small-business storefronts.
However, the behemoth will bring jobs. Underserved parts of DC need jobs and "Main Street" can't provide stable employment on such a massive scale. Though the DC Council will probably have to force them do to it, Wal-Mart can afford to pay hundreds of workers a living wage. Given the overhead costs for Mom and Pop, living wages are not always a possibility.
There's already a Wal-Mart inside the Beltway in Prince George's, and the District is likely losing tax revenue because people drive out there now, as it is. Shouldn't we keep that local?
Though there are more than a few criticisms of the way the Wal-Mart brings goods and services, they do put those amenities within the reach of shoppers who might not otherwise afford it. Those with groceries, like the ones planned for DC, can make fresh produce accessible. Some Wal-Marts even offer eye examinaions and fill contact lens orders. If one-stop shop also includes better access to optical care, that's beneficial.
In 2004, Ward 5 residents thwarted a potential effort from Wal-Mart; the company then claimed the space they were looking to occupy was actually too small. There's plenty to hate Given the circumstances, the best we can do is demand that, when Wal-Mart hulks its way into the District in 2012, it offer our residents living wages and a well-designed, urban-friendly space.
Alex Baca holds B.A. degrees in English and American Studies from the University of Maryland, College Park, and is currently pursuing a Master of Historic Preservation at the same institution. She works for Washington City Paper, but views here are her own. She lives near the U Street corridor and occasionally blogs at Good Hope. 
Comments
- Community stories show the shift to a walkable lifestyle
- Focus transportation on downtown or neighborhoods?
- Young kids try to assault me while biking
- Some are pushing to limit sidewalk cycling
- Where is downtown Prince George's County?
- Endless zoning update delay hurts homeowners
- Metro bag searches aren't always optional
Is this really true? Eric Fidler told me that at DCUSA (which would be the closest development to this planned one), it was parking minimums that forced so much parking to be built, not developers' wishes. And as I mentioned in my blog, Walmart in the past has lobbied for minimums to be reduced, since overbuilding parking is bad for their bottom line. Are you sure that it's Walmart that's going to want all the parking, and not local residents?
It seems like this is an important distinction - if it's Walmart that wants the parking, then your job as a planner is to interfere with the market. But if it's local residents who want the parking, then your job as a planner isn't to force Walmart to do anything, but to convince the neighbors to merely allow construction to occur at the market equilibrium.
by Stephen Smith on Nov 19, 2010 1:16 pm • link • report
For DC USA, it's true that the zoning required more parking than was built, but the reason that it's still over-built with parking was (correct me if I'm wrong) largely the consequence of the retailers demanding X level of parking or they would not sign a lease.
Unfortunately, in the DC USA case it's the city taxpayer who now suffers the financial consequences of a little-used garage.
Was the city's loss on parking a necessary evil in order to increase the neighborhood's retail options? Well, that's a political question of priorities and I'm not sure what the answer is.
by Eric Fidler on Nov 19, 2010 1:31 pm • link • report
The question should really be, Does our built environment make sense? Some empty storefronts can be converted to niche retail or other small businesses like restaurants and dry-cleaners. But we have empty storefronts in some parts of the city while office and residential rents are sky-high in other parts. That suggests that uses are misallocated. Everybody would probably be better off if some retail space was converted to residential or offices. Not all of it -- mixed uses are valuable -- but our currently mix may tilt too heavily toward small retail uses in at least some places.
by Gavin on Nov 19, 2010 1:33 pm • link • report
*close to metro
*with limited parking above and/or below (no separate parking garages or lots)
*with a relatively narrow storefront with open windows that keeps most of the store on an upper or lower level without stealing precious sidewalk space from a diverse mix of ground-floor retail
...then we might entertain the argument that it wouldn't do harm to DC.
anything that perpetuates and reinforces the suburbanization of DC is a big negative for the city and undermines our city's strengths. whatever jobs or tax dollars provided will be a pittance compared to the harm.
by tim h on Nov 19, 2010 1:36 pm • link • report
by Gavin on Nov 19, 2010 1:38 pm • link • report
If they're cheaper/better than mom and pop shops shouldn't they win your business? Isn't that how the market works? Why should we discriminate against them because they're good at what they do?
If people really cared that Wal-Mart ships jobs overseas then they shouldn't buy Chinese stuff from them. Do we not believe in free trade? We can't hope to pull the world out of poverty AND demand that all jobs stay in America. Besides there is some evidence that these shocks have short term negatives, but long term positives.
Wal-Mart has made huge strides since that 2003 article. The main point is that they don't break the law. In many cases - especially the environment - they're pushing themselves and their suppliers to exceed the law.
I just don't get this knee-jerk reaction to hating Wal-Mart. Maybe we should make it illegal for them to sell anything at a price below the city average. This all sounds like Atlas Shrugged. Which is sad, because that book sucks.
by David C on Nov 19, 2010 1:40 pm • link • report
You clearly know more about this specific case than I do, but is it possible that the retailers were bluffing? As you mentioned, this wasn't your normal parking battle - this was the city offering to build parking for free. And who wouldn't want more parking if you didn't have to pay for it? (Well, except us lonely urbanists.) What was the downside of claiming that they wouldn't sign the lease if there wasn't enough city-provided parking? It sounds to me like the city folded when they should have called the bluff.
by Stephen Smith on Nov 19, 2010 1:44 pm • link • report
"The City" is not a uniform entity. The planning professionals wanted even less parking than what Target and the developer proposed. The political folks were the ones who caved, not the planners. Both groups, of course, represent "the City."
Nevertheless, DC USA is a datapoint to be referenced in future negotiations. It's lack of use will be central to discussions about parking for these Wal-Mart stores, to be sure.
by The City on Nov 19, 2010 1:50 pm • link • report
by Ward 1 Guy on Nov 19, 2010 2:24 pm • link • report
Target didn't end life as we know it. It changed it for the better. As far as the impact on small, local retailers, the reality is that small, single-purpose retail storefronts that sell commodities like office supplies and consumer goods are not what people want.
There is no thriving, locally-owned retail sector in DC. The places that stand to lose are by and large decrepit, overpriced, understocked, and sell products of a quality that is just as crappy as Wal Mart. Where do you go to buy electronics? Office supplies? Kitchen gadgets? Tee shirts? I seriously doubt it's a bodega storefront.
On the other hand, the existence of these places keeps shoppers in DC, and can be a hub for other places that we do want to rise: restaurants, specialty shops, and so on.
For better or for worse people shop at big box stores, and pretending otherwise is not keeping any DC businesses afloat. It's just keeping business out of DC. Instead of moaning about Wal Mart or whoever coming to town, we should be working as hard as we can to ensure that their development is the best possible.
by Jamie on Nov 19, 2010 2:30 pm • link • report
by wd on Nov 19, 2010 2:59 pm • link • report
'Course, if the Yellow Line didn't have such God-awful frequencies during the late evening, I probably wouldn't have had to drive to begin with...
by Froggie on Nov 19, 2010 3:00 pm • link • report
by Fritz on Nov 19, 2010 3:01 pm • link • report
by Adam L on Nov 19, 2010 3:11 pm • link • report
How long before we get IKEA downtown? That would be a chain worth celebrating.
by M.V. Jantzen on Nov 19, 2010 3:14 pm • link • report
Here are just a few of the news results concerning this:
Good - http://mleibman.github.com/SlickGrid/examples/example5-collapsing.html
USA Today - http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2010-09-20-walmart-urban_N.htm
WSJ - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703673604575550243762557882.html
I also hear a lot of complaining about Home Depot on Rhode Island Ave having a large parking lot. Perhaps the lot could be smaller, and perhaps they could have picked a different location, but if I'm going to pick up a sink, lumber, or something large, am I really going to take that 4x6 on the bus or the metro? What exactly is the answer there? Perhaps ZipCars at Home Depot? Couldn't you argue that having it next to a metro would allow folks to metro to it and rent a Home Depot truck to get their goods home?
I appreciate the authors on this site, but recently, some articles are reading more like ranting and worry about projects that we really no very little about. It may be great for page views, but does it really further the discussion?
by Tony L on Nov 19, 2010 3:18 pm • link • report
Now this may be an argument for not wasting metro-accesible space on a Home Depot, but the value of that store in the city is immense.
Besides that, how many actual residences are really in easy walking distance of that metro stop? Everything to the south is commercial, and while there are some single-family homes nearby, it's not high density, nor is it in any way a place that has a ton of foot traffic.
I don't see this as a big travesty, it's just a reality. In some places surface parking still makes sense. And don't tell me they could have had a multi-level parking garage, I've been to the Seven Corners home depot and it's a disaster.
by Jamie on Nov 19, 2010 3:23 pm • link • report
That WSJ article talks about urban store footprints of 30-60k sf. However, Walmart's own website for DC says they're pursuing stores of 80-120k sf:
http://www.walmartwashingtondc.com/whats-at-stake/
For comparison, the two-floor Target at DC USA is 180k sf.
by Alex B. on Nov 19, 2010 3:29 pm • link • report
I believe some of the articles also say that they're current suburban stores (which this article is anticipating) are usually over 150k sf.
If you were WalMart's PR, and knew that you'd be negotiating down the store size in the city, wouldn't you come in a little high so that everyone was happy in the end when you lopped off another 30k sf to get down to the 120ksf you mention?
by Tony L on Nov 19, 2010 3:34 pm • link • report
They have a sizable store in Honolulu (in the relatively pedestrian-friendly, but not über-touristy, Ala Moana area) in a two-storey building with a Sam's Club on the top floor. There's a multistorey parking garage attached to it with free parking (albeit in an area where other parking is sometimes, but not always, free as well). Actively enforced street parking meters do exist in the neighborhood.
View of the Honolulu Walmart/Sam's Club
They don't particularly enforce the parking restrictions there, and people from the surrounding office buildings do sometimes park there during the day.
It also has space for several retailers along the street, including a Starbucks, Cold Stone Creamery, and a Jamba Juice, with a few outdoor tables.
It doesn't have the absolute best urban form (there's still a half a block face on each side looking into a garage), but it shows they're willing to try. Frankly, it's damn good for a Walmart. I'm not sure if it was the City, the developer, or Walmart that encouraged the design they used.
In any case, the District (to the best it's able legally) should be using that Honolulu store as negotiating tool to suggest that nothing less would be desired. Hopefully it'll even be way better.
by Joey on Nov 19, 2010 3:39 pm • link • report
If they plan on buying public land for this, they should be forced to allow unionization in their DC stores as well as living wages, and a sustainable design. They should have to compete for labor just like others do.
by John on Nov 19, 2010 4:14 pm • link • report
Aren't these statements contradictory? The first half is saying they should be forced to do all these things that their competitors aren't, and the second is saying they should be treated the same.
by Stephen Smith on Nov 19, 2010 5:20 pm • link • report
by Jim on Nov 19, 2010 6:13 pm • link • report
Such a big corporation and never cared about creating jobs in DC, never cared to offer their "competitive prices" to a population that really needed it.
And now that DC is starting to take off they are coming? Now that the tough job is done?
I do not want them here, all its sell is crap, overpriced crap. Nothing compared to Target, that at least have a nice customer service and great clearances.
Walmart should stay in the suburbs and pay its miserable wages there.
by Mar on Nov 19, 2010 8:09 pm • link • report
by Payton on Nov 19, 2010 8:50 pm • link • report
(1) Wal-Mart sells the same type of goods (same brands and quality) as Target, K-Mart, Best Buy, CVS, etc. Target and Wal-Mart are almost identical companies; they watch each other and copy each other constantly. Their pay and benefits are almost exactly the same. (And actually, if you consider that Wal-Mart is concentrated in low-cost of living rural areas, its average pay is probably better than Target's average pay.)
(2) Wal-Mart is anti-union, and (like most major retailers) does not have a single unionized worker. The idea of asking Wal-Mart to have a unionized store in DC will go nowhere fast. A union would force them to raise prices (which, btw, would hurt all the poor people who shop there), and low prices and convenience are the only reason why people shop at Wal-Mart.
(3) When Wal-Mart enters a market, it often causes direct competitors to grow leaner or go out of business. However, the customers who used to shop at the overpriced stores spend the money they save at other businesses - specialty shops, restaurants, theaters, gyms, etc. So while Wal-Mart can hurt general merchandisers and grocers that directly compete with it, it can greatly benefit other businesses. Wal-Mart's impact on small businesses is about the same as the impact of CVS, Target, Best Buy, Staples, etc. People who are against Wal-Mart will bizarrely claim that Wal-Mart destroys "mom & pop" businesses but will have no qualms about shopping at Target.
(4) The main reason why Wal-Mart is the hated is because there's alot of anti-Wal-Mart propaganda out there. Most of this is union propaganda. The unions have always had issues with Wal-Mart because in the 1980's and 90's the company's union-busting practices were replicated throughout the retail industry. The other reason is Wal-Mart's grocery stores. The union campaign against Wal-Mart really started in the early 2000's when Wal-Mart first announced plans to move into California with 25 grocery stores. Most of the grocery stores in California are unionized - which means they are overpriced, understaffed, small, old, and filthy. Wal-Mart would put them out of business, which would hurt a number of left-wing politicans who relied on SEIU money. Most of the anti-Wal-Mart websites, such as wal-martwatch.com, were started by the California unions in early 2000's to fight Wal-Mart's expansion into the grocery market. In DC Safeway and Gaint are both unionized (which is why their stores are overpriced, understaffed, and filthy), so expect the unions to resist Wal-Mart in DC.
(5) Urban blacks will support Wal-Mart in DC. It will be upper class white yuppies and union thugs who are against Wal-Mart. The yuppies are only against Wal-Mart for cultural reasons though. In practice and in reality, Wal-Mart is identifical to Target. Target simply markets itself as "cheap chic" - and specifically tries to appeal to "hip" urban whites. But their pay and benefits are the same.
(6) Wal-Mart is the largest and most sophisticated retailer in the world - all other retailers watch what it does, esp. its decisions about where to place stores. If Wal-Mart's DC stores are succesful, expect other retailers and businesses to follow Wal-Mart's lead. This is not just an opportunity for Wal-Mart to show that it can function in an urban environment; this is also an opportunity for DC to show the national business community that this is no longer a jurisdiction that is arrogantly and irrationally hostile to businesses.
(7) Wal-Mart hires alot of people who would otherwise not have a job. You might believe that $12 an hour is not a good wage, but these are usually people who would be making nothing if they weren't working at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart jobs are better than no jobs. Also, expect the anti-Wal-Mart people to assume that every Wal-Mart worker is a single mom with 3 kids. They will say that $12 an hour is below the federal poverty level "for a family of four." But if you assume a two-income household, it's well above the federal poverty level. Regardless, Wal-Mart pays the prevailing market wages - on par with Target, CVS, Costco, Sears, K-Mart, Best Buy, Old Navy, etc.
by durhonka on Nov 19, 2010 9:22 pm • link • report
For anyone optimistic about what a big box retailer might do to/for an area based on what the retailer says, I'd suggest you just study what has happened to cities/towns/communities that already have such stores -- there are literally thousands of case studies to understand the effects these types of operations have on communities, and now there is a _lot_ of formal evidence/studies.
Also, it's very possible to fight off community-destroying big box retailers and win. Towns all across America, big and small, have been winning, at least on occasion, and sometimes repeatedly, for years.
However, the behemoth will bring jobs.
I think Walmart will hire people to work at their stores, but how many people will be laid-off/fired from existing businesses that will fold due to Walmart entering the market? One MIT-bred professor says only 50 jobs or less will be created in the long term, at the expense of small, local, community-owned and -run businesses, employees, residents, citizens, neighbors:
This paper estimates the effect of Wal-Mart expansion on retail employment at the county level. Using an instrumental variables approach to correct for both measurement error in entry dates and endogeneity of the timing of entry, I find that Wal-Mart entry increases retail employment by 100 jobs in the year of entry. Half of this gain disappears over the next five years as other retail establishments exit and contract, leaving a long-run statistically significant net gain of 50 jobs. Wholesale employment declines by approximately 20 jobs due to Wal-Mart's vertical integration. No spillover effect is detected in retail sectors in which Wal-Mart does not compete directly, suggesting Wal-Mart does not create agglomeration economies in retail trade at the county level.
I read a similar study this summer, but can't find it. It was important to us SF folks b/c Target was moving into downtown SF, and Lowe's was moving into the economically-depressed Bayview district. I thought I remembered it saying that the net long-term gain in jobs was zero - but I'd have to double-check.
As for Walmart jobs being 'stable' -- well, they own Sam's Club, which laid-off 11,000 workers without warning in January. They laid-off another 300 at company HQ a month later, for a total of 14,000 jobs cut over the previous 13 months.
And then there's the question of what types of jobs these are: from The Onion -- "Wal-Mart Cuts Over 13,000 Of What It Calls Jobs". We know the stories of employees being kept at part-time so they're not eligible for benefits, and we know about Walmart getting subsidized over and over and over again by taxpayers -- you _will_ pay for those low low prices one way or another. We know about the discrimination.
Walmart has a long history of union-busting.
We got Walmart battling a living wage in Chicago - is that what DC wants?
We know big box stores are terrible for property tax revenues.
We know that buying local has profound benefits for local communities -- in part because more of the money circulates locally.
The Institute for Local Self-Reliance has a 'Big Box Toolbox' website -- check it out.
If you haven't seen the Walmart movie, it's worth your time.
Big box retailers are a bit like car culture -- they don't always affect you directly/obviously/immediately, but your life and the lives of myriad others _will_ be detrimentally impacted -- you just have to be sensitized to the myriad ways big box retailers are destructive. There's no shortage of information available. These institutions are inherently exploitative -- we don't get to see a lot of the destruction, but it's happening. I hope DC takes a pass on Wal-mart and instead opts to develop a local economy.
My parents used to live in a small town in NC -- don't even remember the name -- moms was real excited when Walmart came to town ("Somewhere to go! Something to do!"). I guess the NC mountains are different than central NJ. :) Anyhow, Walmart came in, everyone was psyched, then the downtown started disappearing, and then everyone said, 'oh man -- what have we done?'
by Peter Smith on Nov 19, 2010 9:37 pm • link • report
I am no fan of Walmart. But they have been rebuffed by cities before. Instead of keeping them out (there are some, limited benefits they could bring as discussed above), I think we should push for Walmart to create a new design that can still leverage their strengths.
This could be their Chipotle. And a Chipotle they need, because their US markets are saturated.
I think someone at Gtr Gtr Wash could write up a pretty convincing pilot structure for Wal-DC.
by Katmere on Nov 19, 2010 9:40 pm • link • report
We estimate the effects of Wal-Mart stores on county-level retail employment and earnings, accounting for endogeneity of the location and timing of Wal-Mart openings that most likely biases the evidence against finding adverse effects of Wal-Mart stores. We address the endogeneity problem using a natural instrumental variables approach that arises from the geographic and time pattern of the opening of Wal-Mart stores, which slowly spread out from the first stores in Arkansas. The employment results indicate that a Wal-Mart store opening reduces county-level retail employment by about 150 workers, implying that each Wal-Mart worker replaces approximately 1.4 retail workers. This represents a 2.7 percent reduction in average retail employment. The payroll results indicate that Wal-Mart store openings lead to declines in county-level retail earnings of about $1.4 million, or 1.5 percent. Of course, these effects occurred against a backdrop of rising retail employment, and only imply lower retail employment growth than would have occurred absent the effects of Wal-Mart.
by Peter Smith on Nov 19, 2010 9:55 pm • link • report
Let me add something for those who claim Sprawl-Mart will bring jobs:
"According to the UC Berkeley Labor Center, "There is strong evidence that jobs created by Wal-Mart in metropolitan areas pay less and are less likely to offer benefits than those they replace. Controlling for differences in geographic location, Wal-Mart workers earn an estimated 12.4 percent less than retail workers as a whole, and 14.5 percent less than workers in large retail in general." [Center for American Progress, 10/16/05] "
by Mar on Nov 19, 2010 11:02 pm • link • report
Of those jobs that are replaced by Walmart how many are the same employees
by kk on Nov 20, 2010 10:49 am • link • report
by Mar on Nov 20, 2010 9:30 pm • link • report
by David C on Nov 20, 2010 11:26 pm • link • report
by KadeKo on Nov 21, 2010 11:10 am • link • report
First, not everyone in the areas in which the Walmarts will be placed are poor or unemployed. There are people here who actually work legitimate jobs, in addition to living in DC. Second, not all residents in the areas proposed were in mass favor of a Walmart being placed in DC. However, at the end of the day, the decision has been made that 4 Walmart Stores will be placed in DC. There is nothing that any citizen can do to prevent what has already been planned by the officials in authority in DC-who are under the current administation aka (Fenty). Third, I don't give a damn how many people will claim that they've never shopped or will never shop at a Walmart. If you are aware of the products being sold there, or the environment of the store, then chances are they've actually stepped their foot into a Walmart in order to have an idea of what it is about. Also, the only difference between Walmart and Target is this price of the items the are being sold and the Starbucks inside of Target. They are both "Big-Box"stores with non-unionized workers,selling the same damn products. And there is no difference between the agenda behind Walmart's charitable contributions and those of Target(didn't Target make contributions to a political entity?). And just to make you aware- the same "Black People" who patronize Walmart are the same who patronize Target, Ikea, Best Buy and the rest. We also, like variety in our shopping experiences-contrary to what you believe or "perceive". Many of us prefer to go across the line because over the past 4-6 years the focus of development has mostly been on the Downtown,NW areas of the city-which I am pretty sure that this you are aware of .
by Charmaine on Nov 21, 2010 1:49 pm • link • report
It seems you took my words to mean something they were not intended to mean -- assuming you did, in fact, mean to address me and not someone else.
As an example, I'll just talk about your first two sentences:
First, not everyone in the areas in which the Walmarts will be placed are poor or unemployed. There are people here who actually work legitimate jobs, in addition to living in DC.
I said that a Target is going into downtown SF and a Lowe's is going into the economically-depressed Bayview district. That's it. So I'm not sure what all the 'not everyone is poor' and 'people actually have legitimate jobs' stuff is all about -- has nothing to do with what I said.
However, at the end of the day, the decision has been made that 4 Walmart Stores will be placed in DC. There is nothing that any citizen can do to prevent what has already been planned by the officials in authority in DC-who are under the current administation aka (Fenty).
You may be right, but I'd be curious if you think Fenty cleared the way for Walmart, and if anyone else in the city thought it was a good idea?
And, was there massive opposition to Walmart that nobody covered? If there was massive opposition, I certainly didn't hear about it.
My view is that even the most progressive of urban planner-types, including the folks who regularly blog here, grossly underestimate the destructive power of big box stores -- to cities, to societies, to our collective humanity. Like, with car parking, we had the Parking Professor write a book and start taking on the bad guys, and a lot of us were like "Holy Cow! We had no idea how harmful to society parking was!" Well, we need someone to do the same for big box stores that Professor Shoup did for parking. And some of that learning is going on now, with GGW and crew pressuring Wal-mart to act right, so that's good.
At a minimum, it seems not enough people thought it was a bad idea to allow Walmart in. I can't complain too much about GGW coverage -- they mentioned it about a year ago, then a couple of times this summer, then in early October and more recently. I read those posts and I thought, 'eh'.
The problem with opposing big boxes is that it just says 'no' -- we would need to articulate a different vision for the city that could actually work. You want to build a local economy? OK -- how?
If we can't answer that, and we haven't organized and educated one another, then we're left with our only option -- allowing Walmart in and trying to decrease the amount of harm they'll do to the local community and/or maybe even see if we can pressure them and have them help benefit the local community in some way, even if it doesn't result in a net benefit.
San Diego just passed an ordinance to require an economic impact report for SUPERDUPERMEGASTORES (aka 'supercenters' aka 'exploitationcenters') that want to sell groceries, etc. DC should consider the same. If you've just effectively announced the impending layoffs of dozens/hundreds of DC workers and the closing of several/dozens of small businesses, then at least get something for it -- try and institutionalize some future protections for workers and small businesses.
My guess is that people are just depressed -- they're not energized to fight a monster corporation when they're trying to figure out how to catch up on rent. The general feeling in cities across the country right now seems to me to be, "Good -- we're finally gonna have urban access to a big box store -- I can finally get some cheap soap." People tire out, get older, burn out, and die -- corporations can live forever.
People are desperate -- for jobs, for change, for something/anything, even a Walmart or Target. There are still people who oppose the big boxes, but Walmart and Target are definitely winning, which in my opinion means most people/communities/workers/small businesses/the environment/our children/etc. are losing, even if it's not clear to them yet. It may be short-sighted, but if people are hungry enough, they're gonna eat -- long term risks/consequences be damned -- and that includes me. Still, the San Diego case shows that regular people can still eek out important victories when they commit themselves to it.
by Peter Smith on Nov 21, 2010 8:13 pm • link • report
by Tony L on Nov 22, 2010 4:06 pm • link • report
Add a Comment