Converting shopping malls into apartments [video](youtube.com)
youtube.com
Converting shopping malls into apartments [video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1GIF6VNipE
64 コメント
> But what do you do with a big box the size of a Walmart?
Cut out a square in the center and make it a courtyard. Now you can have windows on the inside and outside.
Cut out a square in the center and make it a courtyard. Now you can have windows on the inside and outside.
See "The Sordid History of NYC Air Shafts".[1]
[1] https://www.citysignal.com/the-sordid-history-of-nyc-air-sha...
[1] https://www.citysignal.com/the-sordid-history-of-nyc-air-sha...
> rancid air shafts, filled with human waste, limited airflow, and a pungent odor
I am suggesting proper courtyards, not slots filled with human waste.
In Morocco, A/C is not common but many houses have a “square donut” shape with a courtyard in the middle where air can naturally cool the house. It’s pretty nice.
I am suggesting proper courtyards, not slots filled with human waste.
In Morocco, A/C is not common but many houses have a “square donut” shape with a courtyard in the middle where air can naturally cool the house. It’s pretty nice.
Final sentence of the article: "As a result of this uproar, the city introduced new regulations that created larger interior courtyards and stating that developers could only build on less than 70 percent of a lot."
Funny you mentioned Wal-Mart because they've already been providing support to an effective housing solution in the form of letting RVs stay in their parking lot.
I've come across many people that this type of housing seems to work quite well for. Of course, I wonder what might be the repercussions? Might require some oversight to prevent devolving into tent cities? But then again, I'm not personally aware of tent cities causing much harm (to anyone outside of the tent city)
I've come across many people that this type of housing seems to work quite well for. Of course, I wonder what might be the repercussions? Might require some oversight to prevent devolving into tent cities? But then again, I'm not personally aware of tent cities causing much harm (to anyone outside of the tent city)
RVs in the parking lot of Walmart is an effective housing solution? I think not.
Why not? It increases supply
An RV is better than nothing but they are not built for continuous use. An RV that is being lived in full time will start falling apart in a few years.
RVs can be repaired or replaced. And if the alternative is expensive enough, it's financially worthwhile to do so.
It's just the least insane option in an insane world.
It's just the least insane option in an insane world.
It increases the supply of blight, perhaps.
I mean would you rather have RVs or tents on sidewalks?
Many of those in lower quality housing have jobs. The service workers and whatnot in every community have to live somewhere.
Many of those in lower quality housing have jobs. The service workers and whatnot in every community have to live somewhere.
Neither. Raise taxes and have the government build decent houses.
that has zero realistic chance of happening in the US. Even repealing the Faircloth amendment that limits public housing stock is not broadly popular.
And these days all housing providers, whether for-profit, non-profit, or public, are running into the same issues with zoning, financing, rising costs, etc.
And these days all housing providers, whether for-profit, non-profit, or public, are running into the same issues with zoning, financing, rising costs, etc.
The wal-mart RV parking thing is intended for one night, for people who are on a journey.
It is not in any way shape or form a 'housing solution'
It is not in any way shape or form a 'housing solution'
Plenty of Walmarts have signs posted that prohibit overnight parking
It’s typically due to local laws. Sometimes it is straight up zoning, but often projects on the scale of a Walmart have to be negotiated.
18 wheelers on the parking lot fringes are a good indication that parking overnight is ok even if the signs say no.
18 wheelers on the parking lot fringes are a good indication that parking overnight is ok even if the signs say no.
The late-20th century big box store is also not really a structure designed to last more than a few decades at most. They usually get torn down because they are at end of life and it is cheaper/easier to demolish than invest significant sums.
Enclosed malls have a better shot because they were built with (slightly) higher quality, but none of the strip mall boxes are worth saving.
Enclosed malls have a better shot because they were built with (slightly) higher quality, but none of the strip mall boxes are worth saving.
In malaysia a lot of residential buildings are build on top of mall altogether but those are planned ahead from the start and those residential buildings are 40 levels high. 3 levels are mostly reserved for car parking for residents, 1 floor have shared facilities like swimming pool, gym. Top level as playground room or cowork or for organising barbeque or birthday party. Lifts are super fast. Then you have malls attached to those residential buildings and those are usually connected with nearby public transport.
Sadly in western world we don't build such high residential buildings - mostly 5 levels or less than 10 levels with not enough parking places around.
Sadly in western world we don't build such high residential buildings - mostly 5 levels or less than 10 levels with not enough parking places around.
It's very common in many countries in asia and leads to excellent quality of life. You can live without a car and have everything at hand.
That sounds like an arcology.
I would not want to live in an arcology.
I would not want to live in an arcology.
My sister lives in one in KL, and describes it as an arcology - and I’ve gotta say, it’s super convenient to not need to leave the building to go grocery shopping, or for pretty much any of the day-to-day services you might need. It’s like a 5 minute city, never mind 15 minute.
And no, residents are not imprisoned.
And no, residents are not imprisoned.
notably that corner of the world, especially singapore, in some ways is opposite to murica's personal independence attitude. more of a "you will own nothing and you will be happy" e.g. everything including cooking is outsourced, and all good quality. So they are happy to learn very few things except one specialized skill and outsource the rest. This sort of urban collectivism runs contrary to the american self-starter rural origins.
Other than the geometry of high density living, the mall and shared facilities at the base isn’t that odd. If you drive to a strip mall to go to a gym or you go to a pool or country club run by your HOA it’s the same thing but with added driving.
I don't think it's exactly the same. Generally I hate malls because they overload my sensors with all blinking and colorful stuff, food and perfume smells, mixed different music, background noise, harder navigation because designers wanna show off rather than make it practical.
I'm right now living in those arcology and mostly only use grocery store and sometimes restaurants - but access to mall is still convenient. And better outdoor social area is just on the other side of street with 5 min walk.
However I do use a lot of residential shared cowork place, playground, gym and swimming pool. For swimming pool or gym you don't have to prepare how to dress properly before driving car - you can spontaneously early in the morning take few meters to lift and go there in your swimming or gym clothes. You don't have to worry only about driving but parking, paying for parking, that you forgot to pack some gym or swimming clothes. Undressing and locking everything in the locker - you just take a lift back and shower at your place (if you don't want to use showers in facilities)
There is also much more natural light in shared facilities floor because those residential buildings are towers so they have a lot of area on the edge where the windows are.
I'm right now living in those arcology and mostly only use grocery store and sometimes restaurants - but access to mall is still convenient. And better outdoor social area is just on the other side of street with 5 min walk.
However I do use a lot of residential shared cowork place, playground, gym and swimming pool. For swimming pool or gym you don't have to prepare how to dress properly before driving car - you can spontaneously early in the morning take few meters to lift and go there in your swimming or gym clothes. You don't have to worry only about driving but parking, paying for parking, that you forgot to pack some gym or swimming clothes. Undressing and locking everything in the locker - you just take a lift back and shower at your place (if you don't want to use showers in facilities)
There is also much more natural light in shared facilities floor because those residential buildings are towers so they have a lot of area on the edge where the windows are.
”harder navigation because designers wanna show off rather than make it practical.”
Not so at all. Malls are intentionally designed to be hard to navigate, so customers get disoriented, are forced to spend more time there and succumb to impulse buys. Search for ”Gruen Transfer” to learn more.
Not so at all. Malls are intentionally designed to be hard to navigate, so customers get disoriented, are forced to spend more time there and succumb to impulse buys. Search for ”Gruen Transfer” to learn more.
Maybe this is a cultural difference, but it is perfectly acceptable in the US to wear swim or gym clothes on the way to your destination, so this is a non-factor. You’d wear a shirt with your swim clothes, so you’d need a bag, but you most likely need one anyways if you are carrying a phone, wearing shoes, etc.
The moment you get in a private passenger vehicle, it’s not the same thing at all.
You’re a private person in the car but you’re back in public at the mall or a business, unless you’re suggesting that people have gyms and grocery stores in their cars.
No, again, if you are having to drive somewhere rather than walk somewhere, it is not the same thing.
I understand that Americans see driving and walking as pretty much the same thing, or walking as something undesirable and to be avoided at all costs, but that’s literally just in your small corner of the world.
I understand that Americans see driving and walking as pretty much the same thing, or walking as something undesirable and to be avoided at all costs, but that’s literally just in your small corner of the world.
My original comment is not meant to compare driving vs not driving. It is instead meant to contrast with the assertion that most modern Americans in 2024 have anything to do with the self-starting pioneer mindset of yore vs “collective urbanism.”
Please reread the whole thread.
Please reread the whole thread.
> This sort of urban collectivism runs contrary to the american self-starter rural origins.
Cultures are different, so it is a bold assumption that a solution that works for one culture also works for another, different one.
Cultures are different, so it is a bold assumption that a solution that works for one culture also works for another, different one.
I very much want to live in an arcology
It's very difficult to escape when the giant spider attacks it.
There's always been a push/astroturfing online towards dense housing against americans because they know sparse populations are harder to control.
Wait, by whom? The FBI? The CIA?
Sign me up, I want to get paid by the CIA's urbanist YIMBY astroturf project, right now I'm just posting for free like a sucker.
Sign me up, I want to get paid by the CIA's urbanist YIMBY astroturf project, right now I'm just posting for free like a sucker.
Is it so hard to imagine that some people actually like dense housing and don’t want to be a slave to the car?
No it's not, I like to live in dense housing myself.
Nobody is converting suburban shopping malls into appartments.
The Arcade is a special case, because it's actually a central-city mall, located right in the heart of the city, near a bunch of other apartment and office buildings. It's basically the complete opposite of your typical suburban mall, miles from anywhere, surrounded by way too many parking lots.
The other examples this video briefly touches on are something completely different, and far more interesting. These aren't simple conversions of shopping mall interiors, they are projects that are tearing down large chunks of existing suburban shopping malls (and their parking lots) and attempting to re-invent them as a town centre, with added outdoor shopping, high-density housing (brand new apartment buildings), parks and office space.
It's far more than just converting malls into housing. It's an attempt at a completely new approach.
The Arcade is a special case, because it's actually a central-city mall, located right in the heart of the city, near a bunch of other apartment and office buildings. It's basically the complete opposite of your typical suburban mall, miles from anywhere, surrounded by way too many parking lots.
The other examples this video briefly touches on are something completely different, and far more interesting. These aren't simple conversions of shopping mall interiors, they are projects that are tearing down large chunks of existing suburban shopping malls (and their parking lots) and attempting to re-invent them as a town centre, with added outdoor shopping, high-density housing (brand new apartment buildings), parks and office space.
It's far more than just converting malls into housing. It's an attempt at a completely new approach.
The dead or mostly dead malls around where I live don't seem very attractive for housing or mixed residential/retail. They'd still be very car-centric, aren't in especially upscale areas, and I'm not sure how much you'd actually want to preserve.
The closest I'm specifically aware of in the US in Santana Row in the South Bay but that's not really residential (maybe there's some but I'm only aware of the hotels)--and, while there are a fair number of restaurant options--you don't really have groceries or other retail that people would want on a day to day basis AFAIK.
The closest I'm specifically aware of in the US in Santana Row in the South Bay but that's not really residential (maybe there's some but I'm only aware of the hotels)--and, while there are a fair number of restaurant options--you don't really have groceries or other retail that people would want on a day to day basis AFAIK.
I can see how the apartments showed in the video would appeal to some types of people, although I personally would not like it. The mall is still open and has multiple stores in it that are convenient. When a mall is fully abandoned however I don't see what the appeal would be. And it's not like you can just put up some walls in a store and call it an apartment, work needs to be done to convert it anyway. I'm not sure if there is a clear benefit of retrofitting shops into apartments in a more abandoned mall. Surely there are big costs savings with this approach but there are other factors that would need to be considered.
Housing conversions are great and all that. But we're talking 250 sq. ft. units here and not exactly in what a lot of people would consider prime locations. The affordable housing issue is mostly around what people generally consider prime locations.
The Providence Arcade Mall works for this conversion because it is in a prime location in Downtown Providence. There are some pretty high-powered offices near by, RI School of Design is a brisk 5-10 min walk away, Kennedy Plaza, the (for now) central hub for the state's bus system is a 2 minute walk away.
If you're good with a pied a terre in downtown Providence, this is probably an interesting option. Not sure how common that is.
ADDED: That was probably unfairly snarky. But I'm not sure how many people complaining about housing affordability really have in mind very small places in peripheral cities (even fairly nice ones like Providence).
ADDED: That was probably unfairly snarky. But I'm not sure how many people complaining about housing affordability really have in mind very small places in peripheral cities (even fairly nice ones like Providence).
[deleted]
Thanks for the comments - I'd often thought this was a good idea but then..
So perhaps an issue is the distinction between a shopping mall and a shopping centre. Malls have "exterior" windows on the inside overlooking public spaces. Is that sufficient?
And also, a place is not a slum while it is desirable, and perhaps the conversion process needs to start when a mall is still a popular destination. Sheffield's Medowhall is a place I'd love an small flat, but the rental per square meter would not allow anything residential ATM.
I have a personal beef with the way that Meadowhall contributed to the decline of Sheffield city center and the high streets there. The light rail sucked the transit budget away from other projects as well.
Malls have central HVAC, without which the common areas get dank very quickly. I doubt those can be operated affordably with residential tenants.
Yeah not just the HVAC but the entire common area maintenance and pro rata property tax is a high portion of commercial rent in malls. A commercial tenant for the same space would probably pay 5x to 10x what an equivalent residential market rate would be.
A vacant space without a commercial tenant is paying 5 x $0, so ... might as well put the space to good use.
Conversions are really expensive. If the property won't be sustainable with residential rent then why bother doing the conversion in the first place? Seems like a frustrating way to burn money.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but people drastically underestimate the complexity and cost of converting a commercial property into a residential one. All the codes are different, and all the requirements are different.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but people drastically underestimate the complexity and cost of converting a commercial property into a residential one. All the codes are different, and all the requirements are different.
Plus these old malls are often garbage buildings which is why they aren't viable as a mall anymore anyway. Better to send a few million cleaning and preparing the site and then build something that's actually viable for housing.
At the end of the day, the buildings in a deadish mall or shopping center aren't worth much. Maybe the land is worth something but, in that case, why not start fresh with a purpose-built development, either housing or a mix of housing and retail.
yeah that's my point
There are some older buildings in urban centers that probably make sense to repurpose without just tearing them down. but the idea that you'd take extraordinary measures to try to repurpose the Sears, JC Penny, and other mall properties around where I live is just silly rather than just starting from scratch--which doesn't seem to be going much of anywhere.
This looks like a cheap shack house inside an old mall and it's also incredibly small. Value for money is ridiculous. The tenant also doesn't seem very happy with it and only accepting the situation because alternatives are more expensive. You don't need apartments inside a mall. You can a building on top of the mall a 20 story building and have the mall on the first floors. This way the tenants can enjoy full and real apartments while the convenience of the mall is one elevator ride away.
This is not some sci-fi shit, many places in Asia are doing it. The situation in the US is going from sad to pathetic.
This is not some sci-fi shit, many places in Asia are doing it. The situation in the US is going from sad to pathetic.
> You can a building on top of the mall a 20 story building and have the mall on the first floors. This way the tenants can enjoy full and real apartments while the convenience of the mall is one elevator ride away.
Absolutely. For anywhere other than the biggest cities, I suspect you don't even need twenty stories if you have enough of these buildings that are about eight to ten stories above the tall first floor for retail AND an excellent public transit infrastructure so you don't need parking lots.
I think the big problem is people don't want bad public transit to replace cars and are rightly skeptical of any plans that promises good results long term after an initial period of pain where we don't have parking space but we also don't have an excellent public transit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-use_development
Absolutely. For anywhere other than the biggest cities, I suspect you don't even need twenty stories if you have enough of these buildings that are about eight to ten stories above the tall first floor for retail AND an excellent public transit infrastructure so you don't need parking lots.
I think the big problem is people don't want bad public transit to replace cars and are rightly skeptical of any plans that promises good results long term after an initial period of pain where we don't have parking space but we also don't have an excellent public transit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-use_development
> You can a building on top of the mall a 20 story building and have the mall on the first floors. This way the tenants can enjoy full and real apartments while the convenience of the mall is one elevator ride away.
Even in Asia, those residential mall complexes usually house very expensive luxury apartments.
Even in Asia, those residential mall complexes usually house very expensive luxury apartments.
> Even in Asia, those residential mall complexes usually house very expensive luxury apartments.
No. Some of them are expensive. Most of them are middle-class.
No. Some of them are expensive. Most of them are middle-class.
I believe you have to build those apartments at the same time as the mall, no?
This is about converting an already existing mall into something more profitable and productive. If there is not demand for retail space you can convert that into housing instead. It is not "perfect" housing, but it is better than staying vacant.
I wouldn't want to live a structure shared by such a large number of people (fire hazard risk).
Fire sprinklers are common in buildings that hold hundreds of people. Sprinklers are basically nonexistent in single-family houses. Sprinklers are extremely effective at putting out fires and preventing their spread.
Fun fact: Ontario, Canada started mandating fire sprinklers in 4+ storey residential buildings started in the year 2010. Taking into account the lag in planning, design, and construction, it effectively means that any high-rise apartment building constructed after 2015 has sprinklers, and earlier ones don't.
Fun fact: Ontario, Canada started mandating fire sprinklers in 4+ storey residential buildings started in the year 2010. Taking into account the lag in planning, design, and construction, it effectively means that any high-rise apartment building constructed after 2015 has sprinklers, and earlier ones don't.
Most successful conversions are of older buildings with small floors and many windows.[1] Modern buildings with a central utility core and large floors are not good candidates for conversion. There have been some attempts at long, narrow apartments to maximize access to the outside walls, but the result is a slum.
Tearing down malls to build apartments is more common than converting the big boxy spaces.
[1] https://bipartisanpolicy.org/explainer/vacant-offices-housin...