The dead malls

[tango]

The question is "what's a good use with dead malls." It does not say it can't or can be repurposed. A good use? I've listed a whole whack of them, along with Jazzy and Messy. "A good use" doesn't ask "a financially viable use."

A good use does need to be a financially viable use. Otherwise we could turn deserted malls into water parks, spaceship launches and all sorts of other stuff. No money to pay for it? Who cares? No demand for a water park because most of the local kids have unemployed parents who can't pay? No problem, build it anyway. Who needs financial considerations, right?

 

[Albion]

Repurposing a SITE would entail removing the mall and any remnants thereof.

Basically, Yes.

Repurposing a MALL would require finding a new purpose for the MALL.

That's right. And that's what many optimists have urged management of the now dead malls to do when they've said the former stores could be used as offices for photographers or lawyers or government agencies. Unfortunately, that sounds good but will not work...for the reasons already mentioned.

 

[ValleyGal]

I put these in here in the wrong order. Sorry.

Well, yes, making your nearly-empty mall function again by turning it into something other than a mall would "work," but it wouldn't be a repurposed mall

I had mentioned repurposing a mall by using the mall as something else and you said it would not be a repurposed mall.

A good use does need to be a financially viable use.

A good use is not always financially viable. There is other "good" in the world besides money and financial gain. A hostel, homeless shelter, food pantry and soup kitchen for those who are hungry, clothing exchanges or access to used clothing for homeless people to attend interviews, and so much more. If a mall is empty and abandoned (dead), then financial viability is meaningless. ANY use would be a good use.

That's right. And that's what many optimists have urged management of the now dead malls to do when they've said the former stores could be used as offices for photographers or lawyers or government agencies. Unfortunately, that sounds good but will not work...for the reasons already mentioned

Now you are agreeing with me that it IS repurposing (site versus mall).

 

[tango]

A good use is not always financially viable. There is other "good" in the world besides money and financial gain. A hostel, homeless shelter, food pantry and soup kitchen for those who are hungry, clothing exchanges or access to used clothing for homeless people to attend interviews, and so much more. If a mall is empty and abandoned (dead), then financial viability is meaningless. ANY use would be a good use.

Except that if nobody is wlling to pay the bills that hostel, homeless shelter etc soon goes away. "Financially viable" doesn't necessarily mean "able to turn a profit" - it just means that something is able to support itself. Whether that is through generating profits or receiving donations doesn't matter.

If someone is willing to pay the bills to turn an entire mall into a homeless shelter, soup kitchen etc then it's financially viable. If they aren't then your homeless shelter won't be keeping the homeless sheltered for very long.

 

[ValleyGal]

The question is what to do with them, not where is the money coming from. There are endless possibilities. Of COURSE someone would need to fund the good that can come from it. There are non-profits, government funding contracts, donors.

Interesting how the concern turned to money though, rather than the good that can come from an empty mall. You'd rather talk money than the good.... are you a politician? lol

 

[Albion]

I had mentioned repurposing a mall by using the mall as something else and you said it would not be a repurposed mall.

What you wrote was this:

They can either invest in another use for it, tear it down and build something else, or abandon it.

and that is what prompted me to say that if you get rid of the structure and make some other use of that site, doing so doesn't amount to "repurposing the mall" because the mall could no longer be converted for a different use.

 

[Messy]

-

 

[tango]

The question is what to do with them, not where is the money coming from. There are endless possibilities. Of COURSE someone would need to fund the good that can come from it. There are non-profits, government funding contracts, donors.

Interesting how the concern turned to money though, rather than the good that can come from an empty mall. You'd rather talk money than the good.... are you a politician? lol

I'm trying to be realistic.

Asking what to do with something without considering whether it's ever going to happen is just a bunch of pipe dreams. You know, I'd really like to build a huge tower so I can see for miles. Never mind small problems like, you know, a lack of funding. I can plan it anyway, right?

I think it's abundantly clear that nonprofits and donors exist. The question of whether they would take over some or all of a mall is another matter. The question of whether it makes sense to fund an entire mall when much of the space doesn't fit in with their intended use is an issue.

But by all means throw around the insults, they really help a lot.

 

[ValleyGal]

The OP wanted to know a good use for a dead mall. It was not stipulated that it must be financially viable, realistic, or whether it makes sense.

And what insult? Politicians and businessmen are money-oriented, and I've never seen two men discuss dead malls so much in my life. I'm trying to make sense of all this. But laughter isn't okay here, eh? Because it's such a serious discussion? That's over an issue that's not even real to either of the men who are discussing it. Makes no sense to me, but okay. I'll bow out again. I thought it might be fun. I was wrong.

 

[tango]

The OP wanted to know a good use for a dead mall. It was not stipulated that it must be financially viable, realistic, or whether it makes sense.

Seriously, I'm struggling to see how this even makes sense. A good use for a mall that is totally unrealistic isn't really a very good use, is it? Otherwise we could all come up with all sorts of grand ideas ideas that would be lots of fun if it weren't for tedious realities like, you know, reality. Safety, funding, basic practicality. But hey, let's have the homeless sleeping in this unit and turn everything around it into a honking great water park for underprivileged kids and the upstairs floor into a community garden. Someone else can figure out how to make it all actually work.

Never mind, I'm sure the local planning department would enjoy a good laugh at ideas that have no basis in reality and are completely unworkable.

And what insult? Politicians and businessmen are money-oriented, and I've never seen two men discuss dead malls so much in my life. I'm trying to make sense of all this.

I'm not sure how else to read your last line. Assuming I'd "rather talk money than the good" - you can't do much of anything without funding. It's not an either-or situation. If you want to do good with an abandoned mall you still need money. As I said if you don't pay your bills your programs go away very quickly however much good they might be trying to do.

And who would have thought that in a thread about dead malls people might discuss dead malls?