0
   

Location, primo Architect, Chain store - a No.

 
 
Reply Tue 19 Dec, 2006 12:43 am
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,644 • Replies: 9
No top replies

 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Dec, 2006 02:02 am
Actually, that's the way many planning departments in may (European) town and cities do their job :wink:
0 Replies
 
Tico
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Dec, 2006 07:23 am
It's unfortunate for H&M, especially when their competitors are there. (I wish the article had a picture of Nouvel's proposal.) It's possible that the planning department is exercising prejudice, but maybe not. There is a common-enough cycle in urban development where a seedy locale becomes artsy and then trendy, landlords hike the rents, the big retailers come in and shoulder out the small shops. Without services and restaurants, the area becomes very sensitive to the slightest shift in economics. One large retailer decides that the cost of rent/staffing is not worth it and starts a domino effect, with all the other retailers leaving as well. But now the architecture of the big boxes is non-conducive to the revivifying small retailer, and so the area becomes worse than it started. Good planning can prevent this, no?

The better shopping centres, which I am more familiar with than urban planning, have whole departments dedicated to finding the right mix and deciding adjacencies (who will be next to whom) -- all with the aim of creating a lively, regenerating community.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Dec, 2006 09:04 am
The reason - given by the CDEC (Commission départementale de l'environnement commercial) - is that there are already 39% of all shops on the Champs selling clothes/clothing and nine greater shops occupy already 13.900 m².
That is thought too be plenty for Paris.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Dec, 2006 10:02 am
"Banal" makes sense. H & M is a cool chain store and everything, but it's a chain store. I'd hate to see the Champs Elysées mallified.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Dec, 2006 10:05 am
H&M might be cool for under-30's, I think. :wink:

I'm glad that they finally stopped changing the character of the Champs .... and has taken quite some time until that was realised.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Dec, 2006 11:29 am
I'm glad about the decision. I like a good planning department (some, in my opinion, have been benighted, some times.) My saying it is an interesting decision - since money often rules, and this is a case of money and building style - was a touch of admiration.

Wise planning can happen in the US; certain structures are not allowed along x corridors, and various kinds of zoning are sometimes a good thing (sometimes not). Some design review boards have savvy like this planner.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Dec, 2006 11:41 am
I'll add that in the best scenario there would have been a policy established before the other Chains built there. This is now a bit of the horse following behind the cart. Still I'm glad for the decision.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Dec, 2006 12:22 am
A big report about this in today's Guardian:

http://i16.tinypic.com/2zf33o0.jpg

Report online: Champs Elysées 'declining into Oxford Street'
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Dec, 2006 12:36 am
Joe Dassin? relative of Jules???


Well, from my pov, a city has a right - if established early- to choose anything, along its main streets.


Do I really think that, I dunno. I'm theoretically a person of license as a city planner, though I haven't worked in a planning department (have done some city planning design.)

One wants to be a pope here, a Sixtus who did the Rome goosefoot, for better or worse.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Location, primo Architect, Chain store - a No.
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/03/2020 at 03:45:06