Design for sustainability is where the world is heading. Manufacturers are being required to design cars so that the parts can be disassembled later for proper disposal. Companies that sell motor oil, or soda bottles, or flourescent light bulbs are required to take them back for disposal. Buildings too can aim for sustainability measured by LEED certifications.
But the typical big box goes in the opposite direction. They typically destroy greenfield locations, add to sprawl, plan for nothing more than a few years, design a building that is obsolete to them quickly, and can't be reused.... so it either sits there abandoned becoming an eyesore to the community and dumping millions of gallons of water runoff into the overflowing sewer systems, or else it has to be demolished with all those materials (only a few years old) getting dumped into our landfills.
Seems like everyone else except for the big box companies themselves pay the price for their wonderfully short-sighted business model. So adding a bit of pre-planning to their building design so that it's more re-usable makes sense. Maybe it doesn't make sense to them, but it makes sense to the community.
You pose some additional information regarding how the automotive industry is working towards regeneration of parts etc. We talk about recyling and consolidation although that is more on a simplier note, it should be modified to meet the future in terms of re-use of development/structure/green space/ etc...
You mention empty buildings -- I think developers like Benderson who typically erects these generic buildings then leaves them unoccupied for years, should have a plan with the town to have some occupants perhaps that are interested before allowing them to erect these empty shells. The one that comes to mind is the huge building he erected on Transit and Clarence Center Road. That has been there for 3 years and no occupants.
What is the benefit of erecting these generic buildings and leaving them unoccupied?
It's a site dedicated to disposition of their vacant stores:
Sorry about the error. Anyway, I had previously asked you where you were getting your information - that WalMart never leases their old stores out. You didn't say where you were getting it from.
Oh, that's fine therising. HOwever, I did go on the current link and it really indicates that Walmart/Sam's Club search for the space to lease if there is empty shells, but readily construct there own. It did indicate that the vacant space is on decline therefore they appear to be utilizing some of the vacant buildings left behind. I thought that I had read long ago about a coalition that went after Walmart and their vacant buildings. But that may have been in a different state.
I did also answer your question "no fact other than what I have seen around the area." The new Walmart on Sheridan is a super store, the original Walmart in the area was on Niagara Falls Blvd. They vacated that building to relocate at the new construction on Sheridan.
Also I noticed the empty Niagara Falls Boulevard store is *not* listed on the Walmart site. So I wonder if they are still technically paying the lease on it, or maybe someone else has already contracted to lease it, or their website just isn't up to date?
Every private business in WNY should go out of their way to be efficient, regardless of cost, to ensure for potential outcomes that are not even considered statistical probablities. However, government has no such responsibility. Rather funny that with all of the arm chair developers and business experts, who think they have a clue as to how that world works, likes to pontificate about how things should be done fail to take control of the one area where they can control...that being the local government.
Take a read on this BRO post that talks about 10 years of residential development in the COB. In that time just 700 units have come on line. While better than nothing, in comparison to others areas, it is almost nothing. Yet in those same 10 years the COB, with government funds, have spent 100s of millions on sh*tty suburban style housing in areas that are unproductive and do not provide a ROI. The only rhyme or reason is that these developments are close to the 'churches' that are run by 'preachers' who think they are developers. Yet the stagnation of the downtown 'rebirth' is due to the developers who put their money where their mouth is do not moving fast enough.
In 10 years they have yet to create the type of density that would allow for spin off benefit in the DT core. One has to wonder what would be the current outlook if those arm chair experts had spend half of the time ensuring competent leadership lead the city to develop in the core rather than build needless structures for so call pastors and barber shop owners on the east and west side of the city.
The WalMart on the Boulevard won't remain empty for long. I'm willing to take bets on that.
Anyway, it wouldn't be on their website, because it's not owned by them.
I thought the site was a good find too therising. They also indicated on this site that they are trying to be good "stewards" of the environment.
The site on Niagara Falls Blvd. will require less retrofitting, I believe it isn't as big as some of Walmart's current facilities. So retrofitting might be easier at this particular site on the Blvd. It is in a prime location. I think all that space on the Blvd. & Maple is struggling to find space to build for retail, so therising you right, this site will go fast.
My prediction is that the Falls site will be turned into some sort of warehouse/office use.
Boulevard will be occupied by the Fall (or at least end of year.)
Hamburg is a tough one. Maybe the building will come down.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)