Downtown Orlando Project Discussion

[FLClarkKent]

A post from over on SSC (http://www.skyscrape...=1508228&page=6) :

"Anyone else seeing a pattern?

Steel House

899 North Orange

Sevens

RIDA

Mid-rise Fever. Build with the cheapest materials possible to a height threshold that will maximum profits, short term. I guess this is what happens when developers finally figured out our dirty little secret: we aren't a condo market.

I think I liked it better when they built condos. Said condos went bust. Said condos converted to apartments."

Ahhhh, where to begin...

My first thought was that jack and RedStar will be thrilled in that this is as pure a market signal as one is ever likely to see.

I also thought about the movie, "St. Elmo's Fire," if you happen to be old enough to remember it (I am and my '80's crush on Rob Lowe no doubt keeps it in my mind.)

Finally, I was reminded of Saturn and how GM (especially Chevrolet) all but assured its eventual demise by starving it of the resources to move beyond the initial compact car.

Now, how do all those things go together in my twisted mind? Let's start with the market. As the SSC poster pointed out (I believe it to be, btw, one of our finest UP posters as well but I don't know that), we do indeed seem to be detecting a patten. That of course, is what a successful market does - it responds to signals.

"St. Elmo's Fire?" At the end, the gallant gang of Brat Packers, following a series of post-collegiate misadventures and, perhaps maybe even growing up, decide to forgo the wild Georgetown college bars for a Sunday brunch at Bennigan's (hey, it was the 80s.)

Saturn? After introducing an incredibly successful American-made compact car, GM proceeded, due to an internal power struggle, to starve the brand of a second, larger model. The result? Folks who had purchased the SL as their first car had nowhere to go within the brand as their incomes increased, they started families and just wanted something a little bigger as their 30-year old pudge took hold. Most went somewhere else for their next car.

Orlando has spent the past couple of decades filling downtown with bars and burger joints and not much else. Also, downtown real estate, being pricy, and since the dearth of retail (after the initial huge additions of Publix and the Plaza CInema Cafe) means it's all but impossible to live downtown without a car for the basic necessities of life. So, that being the case, when you're ready to settle down and get about the business of being a grownup, you move. Why not move to Colonialtown if you're going to have a car anyway, since, in addition to the somewhat funky vibe, you have all the middle-tier shopping anyone could want? As you get a little older and more sedate after that, there's College Park. It lacks most of the shopping but it's ohhhh so much more tasteful than dealing with all the bar hoppers at the hundred plus bars downtown (and hey, you have to be at work in the morning!)

So, I believe the developers are giving downtown exactly what it has prepared itself for: entry-level apartments for early 20-somethings who like to party. We also have all the retirees in the towers. Anyone between 30-65? Not so much. Will that change? I certainly hope so. I believe it was praha and perhaps bulldogger or JFW who observed that DPAC could be the catalyst for a different kind of downtown environment. We can only hope.

Rob Lowe = Dreamy. But I digress....

Orlando is luckier than some of our neighbors (Tampa, Jacksonville) in that there is a nightlife scene downtown for the 20-something crowd. One that, in turn, encourages them to live downtown, as well. It's not my scene (not as young as I used to be), but I appreciate it for what it is and like that it brings a sense of vibrancy to the city center after dark.

While we need more retail amenities to make downtown livable (drug stores, hardware stores, etc.), downtown isn't necessarily unfriendly to the 30-65 crowd..as long as they don't have kids.

Downtown living (CBD and Uptown, not Thornton Park) simply isn't kid-friendly. There aren't too many schools within walking distance (maybe Howard Middle, but even that's quite a hike from Orange Avenue), so where would you send your little ones to wait for the bus? If you lived in 55 West, what park would you walk your kid, too? I hate the term, but the downtown core isn't what a real estate agent would describe as "family friendly." Parents who want to live downtown would certainly opt for Colonial Town, Delaney Park, the Lake Como/Greenwood area.

[jack]

Sevens and 899 do not belong in that mix. They will be constructed with materials that will stand the test of time. Rida and Steele House are wood. Sevens and 899 are concrete.

Secondly, the poster above hit the nail on the head. There is a challenge to provide housing for 30-45 year olds because of the lack of amenities. But the upside is that the younger crowd will live here and may want to continue after they have kids. This will force changes in the market.

I think there are a lot more 30-40 yr old folks than one might assume.

Edited November 15, 2012 by jack

[FLClarkKent]

Sevens and 899 do not belong in that mix. They will be constructed with materials that will stand the test of time. Rida and Steele House are wood. Sevens and 899 are concrete.

Secondly, the poster above hit the nail on the head. There is a challenge to provide housing for 30-45 year olds because of the lack of amenities. But the upside is that the younger crowd will live here and may want to continue after they have kids. This will force changes in the market.

I think there are a lot more 30-40 yr old folks than one might assume.

I think the real estate market in the downtown core will mature, along with the 20-somethings who currently make up most of the core's residents. It just takes time and good planning.

One aspect of good planning is the East-West expansion of Lymmo. The ability to move cheaply, efficiently and safely throughout the downtown core will be transformative.

[John Hargrove]

This is purely anecdotal, so it could be meaningless, but I do run into increasing numbers of mid-30s doctors, nurses, lawyers, etc. living downtown. Even within 55 West, I've met a few, as well as some retirees. It's a welcome shift.

I'm hoping SunRail will encourage amenities growth around the new downtown transportation hubs. A pharmacy in the CBD would be nice.

[prahaboheme]

Spencer, my takeaway from your very interesting post is that downtown Orlando's strength is also its weakness: The proximity of downtown neighborhoods like Eola Heights, Delaney Park, Thornton Park, Colonialtown no doubt make Orlando unique among its peers notably its older sibling Tampa. It is an attractiveness that many people discover for a first time and are sold instantly on "the real Orlando."

Wealthier and more established middle aged professionals have the option to live near downtown, within walking or biking distance, but do not need to live directly in a district that does not offer the lifestyle they may desire most days of the week. So they gravitate to the established neighborhoods on the fringes of the downtown district that offer community based initiatives like farmers markets, organic food co-ops, social networking events. And can you blame them?

So what are the options / alternatives? The common theory rests that successful infill in the core spurs future development and will ultimately attrack a more sophisticated crowd (work from the inside out). This works in so many cities. Orlando, though, has never been good at following trends. Perhaps it would make the most sense for Orlando to build from the outside, and move inward (this seems to be happening somewhat organically already: case in point, Thornton Park single family homes >>> South Eola denser dwellings, Lake Eola Heights historic district >>> Uptown). In a sense, as Orlando's downtown neighborhoods encroach on the central business district, so too will the lifestyle that will bring in the amenities we all so desire.

[jnorlando]

Sevens and 899 do not belong in that mix. They will be constructed with materials that will stand the test of time. Rida and Steele House are wood. Sevens and 899 are concrete.

Secondly, the poster above hit the nail on the head. There is a challenge to provide housing for 30-45 year olds because of the lack of amenities. But the upside is that the younger crowd will live here and may want to continue after they have kids. This will force changes in the market.

I think there are a lot more 30-40 yr old folks than one might assume.

Jack-do you have renderings for the new Sevens proposal?

[CaptainJustice]

So Downtown Orlando isn't family friendly? Compared to what? A Traditional neighborhood? I mean what makes an area "Family Friendly" ?

[FLheat]

This is purely anecdotal, so it could be meaningless, but I do run into increasing numbers of mid-30s doctors, nurses, lawyers, etc. living downtown. Even within 55 West, I've met a few, as well as some retirees. It's a welcome shift.

Well over half of the VUE is over 30 years old and almost all of the units above the 16th floor (non loft, 2 bedroom +) are occupied by over 30 years olds.

[Pete C]

I lived at the Paramount for 2 years. I would say most residents were 25-35, but there were still many that were 40+. There were a few families with children there as well. We just had a baby and moved to Winter Park since we were able to find a great house for the price, but I tried my hardest to find a place downtown that we could afford. Just didn't happen for what we wanted. In the price range I was looking at the houses needed major work or were extremely tiny. If I did buy downtown I'd prefer to be in Delaney Park as the school district is so much better. Downtown proper is zoned for Edgewater High.

Edited November 16, 2012 by Pete C

[jack]

Jack-do you have renderings for the new Sevens proposal?

No, through conversations with both developers.

[tm68]

The sevens loses its iconic "twist" feature in its latest revival. I don't dislike it. It's pretty massive for uptown.

[RedStar25]

And it looks like?

[tm68]

Sorry. From the city website:

] http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.php/gallery/image/3065-image

Edited November 18, 2012 by tm68

[Dale]

Sorry. From the city website:

] http://www.urbanplan...mage/3065-image

It's a yawner.

[John Hargrove]

Extracted the images from the PDF ...

Not at all exciting architecturally

[alex]

That's pretty boring, but on the bright side it works well with the Citrus building...? At least it wasn't a Mills-Park-style downgrade. But what a difference a small tower or a sail of glass would make.

[spenser1058]

I want to thank everyone for their responses to my earlier post. There were some great thoughts and I hope to respond to them in a separate post. In sum, I think these are my goals:

(1) I really hope to see at least one area in the region where it is possible to live one's life effectively without an automobile.

(2) Downtown, having more of the various components required to do that, seems to be the area where that is most likely.

(3) In fact, the ONLY component missing from that equation downtown is retail other than the mere basics such as dry cleaners, barber shops,etc.

(4) In order to attract retail and complete the task, we must (a) provide a framework for retailers they are comfortable with; (b) ensure there is no competing area that is too close so that retailers simply avoid but is still too far away for residents not to have a car.

The first thing I've noticed is that the idea of just leaving a space or two for retail in the bottom of each new building has been a failure in terms of attracting actual stores and anything besides basic service retail/food service. It's been over 20 years since the Frederick administration required space for retail as part of most new tower construction and. other than Publix at the Paramount, has resulted in zero chain stores relocating downtown (why chain stores? because as more than one mom and pop owner has bemoaned, the chain stores are the anchors that make it possible for the local retailers to thrive in proximity).

Retailers are hive animals, and it seems they like to cluster. OK, how do we "cluster" downtown without turning downtown into just another suburb? First, it seems the folks who run the chains like to rely on specialists like Simon to tell them where to go (for example, H&M was even willing to go in Seminole Towne Center, even though it's on its way to being a failed mall, apparently because they trusted Simon). So how do we get the DDB or the city to farm out this responsibility to a firm like Simon that is willing to hold the hands of thhe retailers and get them to come downtown?

Next, for a "cluster" to occur, it seems logical we need a piece of land large enough to hold several stores of the size desired. One of my concerns with development in Midtown or Uptown (whichever we're calling it now - historically, it really had no name) is that some of the largest tracts remaining adjacent to downtown were up there. If we fill all these pieces of land with apartments and no retail, the tenants are going to be forced to have cars to get to stores to shop. That of course shuts down the goal.

Also, if Fashion Square is redeveloped, will retailers who could care less about our desire to have a pedestrian-friendly zone even bother to make the plunge? Since the #1 difficulty Sun Belt downtowns are having is attracting retail, it appears they'd rather do exactly what they've been doing for 50 years than trying something new. I believe it's vital not to give them that option if at all possible. Let's remember, Colonial Plaza and Fashion Square killed retail downtown in the first place. Before they were built, downtown had 2 fashion department stores, 2 general merchandise stores, a plethora of chain and locally-owned specialty stores; in short, the equivalent of a mall or lifestyle center today (I include this because I received a note from a younger poster who had no idea such stores existed downtown as late as the 1980's - JC Penney - and 1990's - stores like Brookstone and Victoria's Secret.)

As praha noted in response to my earlier post, perhaps Orlando is going to come at this from the outside in and neighborhoods like Delaney Park and College Park are going to initially attract the young folks downtown when they start to raise families. Of course, they don't really have retail either: traditionally, they relied on downtown for shopping and then switched to the malls, and always had cars.

My concern is that we are at a crucial point where decisions in terms of land use and redevelopment will set in place the options for the next generation that will determine whether or not we can create a real pedestrian district. Once there is no land remaining (or if it's too expensive) and once the stores modernize elsewhere, there will be no turning back. So, please pardon my rants on this - I simply believe it's now or never for the kind of downtown we first envisioned back in the early 1980's where everything you needed to live was just a walk away. Perhaps it's as unrealistic as Walt Disney's vision of EPCOT: that one was stillborn because of his death. This vision is about to expire because no one is providing the leadership to channel resources in the right direction. Since there's only one piece missing, it will be all the more tragic if we let it slip through our fingers.

[FLClarkKent]

I want to thank everyone for their responses to my earlier post. There were some great thoughts and I hope to respond to them in a separate post. In sum, I think these are my goals:

(1) I really hope to see at least one area in the region where it is possible to live one's life effectively without an automobile.

(2) Downtown, having more of the various components required to do that, seems to be the area where that is most likely.

(3) In fact, the ONLY component missing from that equation downtown is retail other than the mere basics such as dry cleaners, barber shops,etc.

(4) In order to attract retail and complete the task, we must (a) provide a framework for retailers they are comfortable with; (b) ensure there is no competing area that is too close so that retailers simply avoid but is still too far away for residents not to have a car.

The first thing I've noticed is that the idea of just leaving a space or two for retail in the bottom of each new building has been a failure in terms of attracting actual stores and anything besides basic service retail/food service. It's been over 20 years since the Frederick administration required space for retail as part of most new tower construction and. other than Publix at the Paramount, has resulted in zero chain stores relocating downtown (why chain stores? because as more than one mom and pop owner has bemoaned, the chain stores are the anchors that make it possible for the local retailers to thrive in proximity).

Retailers are hive animals, and it seems they like to cluster. OK, how do we "cluster" downtown without turning downtown into just another suburb? First, it seems the folks who run the chains like to rely on specialists like Simon to tell them where to go (for example, H&M was even willing to go in Seminole Towne Center, even though it's on its way to being a failed mall, apparently because they trusted Simon). So how do we get the DDB or the city to farm out this responsibility to a firm like Simon that is willing to hold the hands of thhe retailers and get them to come downtown?

Next, for a "cluster" to occur, it seems logical we need a piece of land large enough to hold several stores of the size desired. One of my concerns with development in Midtown or Uptown (whichever we're calling it now - historically, it really had no name) is that some of the largest tracts remaining adjacent to downtown were up there. If we fill all these pieces of land with apartments and no retail, the tenants are going to be forced to have cars to get to stores to shop. That of course shuts down the goal.

Also, if Fashion Square is redeveloped, will retailers who could care less about our desire to have a pedestrian-friendly zone even bother to make the plunge? Since the #1 difficulty Sun Belt downtowns are having is attracting retail, it appears they'd rather do exactly what they've been doing for 50 years than trying something new. I believe it's vital not to give them that option if at all possible. Let's remember, Colonial Plaza and Fashion Square killed retail downtown in the first place. Before they were built, downtown had 2 fashion department stores, 2 general merchandise stores, a plethora of chain and locally-owned specialty stores; in short, the equivalent of a mall or lifestyle center today (I include this because I received a note from a younger poster who had no idea such stores existed downtown as late as the 1980's - JC Penney - and 1990's - stores like Brookstone and Victoria's Secret.)

As praha noted in response to my earlier post, perhaps Orlando is going to come at this from the outside in and neighborhoods like Delaney Park and College Park are going to initially attract the young folks downtown when they start to raise families. Of course, they don't really have retail either: traditionally, they relied on downtown for shopping and then switched to the malls, and always had cars.

My concern is that we are at a crucial point where decisions in terms of land use and redevelopment will set in place the options for the next generation that will determine whether or not we can create a real pedestrian district. Once there is no land remaining (or if it's too expensive) and once the stores modernize elsewhere, there will be no turning back. So, please pardon my rants on this - I simply believe it's now or never for the kind of downtown we first envisioned back in the early 1980's where everything you needed to live was just a walk away. Perhaps it's as unrealistic as Walt Disney's vision of EPCOT: that one was stillborn because of his death. This vision is about to expire because no one is providing the leadership to channel resources in the right direction. Since there's only one piece missing, it will be all the more tragic if we let it slip through our fingers.

I appreciate your thoughts and insight. I like a good discussion! Just to quickly respond:

I think one thing that isn't being taken into account your post is the changing nature of retail. The vision of downtown retail that was had in the 80s simply couldn't exist today. The way we shop is completely different (Hello, Amazon.com!) and is reflected in the changing landscape of the retail scene (the consolidation of department stores, the rise of the low-cost retailer, the demise of big box stores, etc.).

I think the angst about a redeveloped Fashion Square is misplaced. The downtown core benefits from having strong, vibrant "downtown neighborhoods" (Colonial Town, Delaney Park, etc.) If Fashion Square goes to pot (some might argue that it already has), JCPenneys, Dillards, etc. aren't going to relocate to Orange Avenue, they'll just close. And that'll be a drag on the nearby downtown neighborhoods which will, in turn, be a drag on the downtown core. I think Parramore is good example of how a declining neighborhood can directly impact the downtown core in an equally negative fashion.

Finally (again, just quickly firing these off), I'm not sure the downtown core is populated or physically big enough to support the type of additional retail that I believe you're referring to. Fashion Square and Colonial Plaza are about 2 miles from Orange Ave. Not walkable necessarily, but with good transit could easily be more connected.

[jack]

To get the chains, we need a large tract of land. The best location I see is the Rida block. It is probably more realistic to hope for redevelopment along Orange avenue in existing buildings.

The changing face of retail does create a challenge and opportunity for all downtowns. But once we reach a critical mass, it will be easier to dictate and demand better services. I always heard 20,000 people. I am sure we are getting closer but residents are spread out. South Eola has the most residential potential with Eola Place still vacant. But the owner wants way too much for a project to be viable in the near future.

[Jernigan]

So are we just talking about new projects being built in coordination with anchor tenants? It doesn't seem like a hard thing to do - office buildings already do this - maybe apartments and mixed use should as well.

Call up Apple and say we want you to be the centerpiece of our new apartment tower that is going to be in/adjacent to a Creative Village. Once Apple buy's in you should have an easier time filling the rest of the slots, even if they are generic retail space.

No different than the way a Publix plaza is built - except in built to downtown code with residential above.

[Captain.Metro]

I agree that current and future buildings in downtown should focus on bringing retail to a centralized, yet urban area. IMO- Uptown was a great location for this because its proximity to 50, easy access to I4 from north and south ends, and ability to serve Eola, CBD, College Park, Ivanhoe and Parramore neighborhoods. The Rida development does have potential and also Creative Village if it comes to fruition.

A great example of big box meets urban neighborhood is (unfortunately) a WalMart being contructed near Fort Totten Metro in DC. Such an example could work in Downtown Orlando. Also, as mentioned above, Eola Place has much potential--- From Eola Place to the proposed Montage block, residential retail could also come to fruition here, though the brick streets do not lend themselves to such high traffic. What downtown needs is a good "destination" retail location. Personally, I think Whole Foods would be a great entrance into the downtown retail scene. If strategically placed, it would be a great addition for its ability to attract customers within a fairly large radius and serve as a dining location for CBD lunchgoers and local residents on-the-go. I've seen great examples where Whole Foods stores situate themselves into densely populated neighborhoods in DC and New York, and also less dense in Sarasota.

[FLClarkKent]

I agree that current and future buildings in downtown should focus on bringing retail to a centralized, yet urban area. IMO- Uptown was a great location for this because its proximity to 50, easy access to I4 from north and south ends, and ability to serve Eola, CBD, College Park, Ivanhoe and Parramore neighborhoods. The Rida development does have potential and also Creative Village if it comes to fruition.

A great example of big box meets urban neighborhood is (unfortunately) a WalMart being contructed near Fort Totten Metro in DC. Such an example could work in Downtown Orlando. Also, as mentioned above, Eola Place has much potential--- From Eola Place to the proposed Montage block, residential retail could also come to fruition here, though the brick streets do not lend themselves to such high traffic. What downtown needs is a good "destination" retail location. Personally, I think Whole Foods would be a great entrance into the downtown retail scene. If strategically placed, it would be a great addition for its ability to attract customers within a fairly large radius and serve as a dining location for CBD lunchgoers and local residents on-the-go. I've seen great examples where Whole Foods stores situate themselves into densely populated neighborhoods in DC and New York, and also less dense in Sarasota.

I think "nuts and bolts" retail and "destination" retail are what will succeed. "Nuts and bolts" are things like drug stores (which we don't have yet), convenience stores (which we now have in abundance thanks to 7-11), dry cleaners, fast food joints, etc.

Destination is more along the lines of the high-end, hard-to-find chains that would draw people into downtown. There was a missed opportunity with H&M. It would have drawn a crowd. Still might, despite there now being 3 in the area. Whole Foods would be a good mix. But if were at City Hall and wanted to give the downtown retail scene a boost, I'd be doing whatever it took to make sure the first Trader Joe's in Orlando opened downtown.

[spenser1058]

Awesome responses from everyone - jack, I thought retail on the RIDA block wouldn't be cost-efficient (or at least not highest and best use), but I'm pleased to see you think it is and acknowledge you're our expert on such things.

FLClark, I agree completely on "nuts and bolts" retail - quite literally as my wish list has an ACE Hardware right at the top. Isn't it also odd that we're building a trail downtown but yet we have no bike shop? Good heavens, downtown Winter Garden is awash in them thanks to the WOT. We also badly need a 24-hour drug store. Publix fulfills some of the need (and Pharmacy Manager Rob Young is awesome!) but their hours are too limited and they don't have a lot of space to stock non-prescription items.

I threw in H&M mainly because, just like Brooks Brothers (which is much nearer and dearer to my preppy heart), they seem to have located more because retail "experts" like Simon and Taubman/Forbes owned/managed those properties than because they were the best places to go: that had to have been the case at Seminole Towne Center. Honestly, I don't expect much high-end retail downtown (our income numbers surrounding downtown all but doom that, I'm guessing), but an UrbanTarget, a JCPenney or a Macy's along with mid-range specialty stores would seem to make sense, especially those targeting a younger demographic. Retail experts, chime in, please!

FLClark, I know what I think downtown needs to accomplish and why, I am not sure at all why we have to compete with Fashion Square to do that. Downtown represents something unique - East Colonial Drive is just a variation on 1960's sprawl that I don't understand the rationale for saving, particularly if it precludes retail downtown. I'm not trying to be a troll about it - I really don't get it. Please help me out. To be honest, if we leveled OFS tomorrow and created a destination trailhead/park space for the Cady Way Trail, would anyone miss it? I guess I just don't see anything unique about it. I am also very amenable to agreeing to disagree and am grateful for the discussion! PeteC, thank you very much for your take on the schools situation. Ironically, compared to most downtowns, I think we have some great options both for the moneyed classes (St James, Lake Highland Prep), the middle-class folks (Howard and Hillcrest are both public school magnets) and some specialty options (Nap Ford and Eola Charters plus the downtown churches have some great pre-schools) but we seem to do a horrible job of sharing those options with young families. I like your point about Edgewater - where is the Boone/Edgewater line, do you know?

Again, many thanks to everyone for throwing in their two cents - I try to pass along comments here to some of the city council staff and they are grateful for input from folks who are passionate about our neighborhoods.

[jack]

So are we just talking about new projects being built in coordination with anchor tenants? It doesn't seem like a hard thing to do - office buildings already do this - maybe apartments and mixed use should as well.

Call up Apple and say we want you to be the centerpiece of our new apartment tower that is going to be in/adjacent to a Creative Village. Once Apple buy's in you should have an easier time filling the rest of the slots, even if they are generic retail space.

No different than the way a Publix plaza is built - except in built to downtown code with residential above.

In an ideal world, yes. But that is not the way is works most of the time. We generally only draw who lives in downtown. Why would someone from Winter Garden drive downtown to go shopping when they can go to Mall of Millenia? Because we have a small downtown market, we need to focus on who is here. That is the nuts and bolts retail.

Mixed use is frankly hard as **** to pull off. Deliveries, co-tenancy issues and lack of a built in market creates a challenge for downtown retail across the nation outside of the few major cities.

[FLClarkKent]

FLClark, I know what I think downtown needs to accomplish and why, I am not sure at all why we have to compete with Fashion Square to do that. Downtown represents something unique - East Colonial Drive is just a variation on 1960's sprawl that I don't understand the rationale for saving, particularly if it precludes retail downtown. I'm not trying to be a troll about it - I really don't get it. Please help me out. To be honest, if we leveled OFS tomorrow and created a destination trailhead/park space for the Cady Way Trail, would anyone miss it? I guess I just don't see anything unique about it. I am also very amenable to agreeing to disagree and am grateful for the discussion!

You mean you don't recognize Fashion Square for the architectural and historical treasure that it is?? Lol.

I think tearing it down and putting in a giant park would be great. But I don't think any of the mall's existing retail would move downtown if the mall were to disappear tomorrow. I think the stores would close up shop and we would all be driving to Millenia, Florida Mall, etc. And the reality is that no one will ever tear it down and replace it with a park. But there's a good chance that -- without some sort of revitalization -- the stores inside could very well wind up closing. And my concern, as someone who lives in a nearby downtown neighborhood, is that the mall will become a blight on the area.

It needs to be revitalized, but I agree that it should be done in a smart way. It's by no means suburban, and needs to be developed with a degree of urban density. I hope that the city is working on that.