Hacker News Reader

Comment by cs702 | Hacker News Reader

This is NOT about buying suburban malls.

It's about buying properties in 45 "inner-city" (high-density) geographical markets worldwide, not just in the US, and transforming those properties into mixed-use spaces.

"We plan to build mixed-use facilities that we call meeting places and that have a wide range of facilities and services," an Ingka representative explains in the OP, adding that "activities could range from healthcare and education to festivals and events, besides retail and food."

I view this as a minor but still welcome development for real estate in high-density areas.

View on HN

But it also says they'll be extensions of existing Ikea stores. How many of those are in inner-city areas? The one in Minneapolis is in the suburb of Bloomington. It's also right across the street from the Mall of America, which will lead to an interesting competitive situation.

The one in Atlanta is next to Atlantic Station which is a large business and residential development with rapid bus transit. It is also near Georgia Tech and Midtown though to get to Midtown you have to cross the highway which is not bike/ped friendly.

Yes. They don't go into a lot of detail, but I suspect they will look at all existing IKEA stores and selectively expand/convert some of them into mixed-use spaces. In particular, I can see them offering, say, 'satellite' office space and meeting rooms in certain suburbs near high-density areas -- for people that now want to work remotely but don't necessarily want to work from their own home every day.

DC Metro has 2 Ikea stores. One in College Park (inner suburb on the MD side, just outside the Beltway). And one in Woodbridge (outer suburbs, a fair hike south in I-95 in VA).

I've never visited the MD location. The VA location is in strip-mall hell.

I have mixed feelings about mixed-use development. In theory, it's great - put shopping, dining, work, and homes in one place. Reduce driving, make walking/cycling possible, etc.

My problem is the way the US approaches mixed-use continues to be at a "larger than human" scale. It's not organic - it ends up being super-blocks developed in one go by a faceless developer. The common spaces tend not to be used - they look good in architecture drawings, but don't work well in meat-space. And parking lots are still built, which creates a Potemkin Village effect (multi-story garage surrounded in fake building facades, etc).

> "My problem is the way the US approaches mixed-use continues to be at a 'larger than human' scale."

as much as i love mixed-use, this is a fair criticism. because of escalating land values (and regulatory costs/uncertainties) in cities, everyone wants to hit a home-run and plays it safe as a result by building hulking superblock developments. there are ways to make those developments human-scale, but that costs more throughout the development cycle, and developers don't see enough return for it, since the effects are long-term, and their financial horizons are shorter-term.

The problem is that US zoning and finance has basically killed off the small upstart developer; think of the general concept of a house flipper, but instead of remodeling the interior they replace one home with two or three smaller homes on the same lot.

This still happens on a smaller scale in older urban areas, simply because price per square foot in places like New York make it hard to assemble a full city block unless you have half a billion on hand, and even if you did land parcels don't become available all at once like that.

This type of "missing middle" development still happens where I currently live in Seattle to a limited extent, but I would really like to see regulations limiting horizontal massing of individual buildings to prevent this problem.

I'm not sure that's the problem. I stayed in a mixed-use development in Southern California and the people who lived there straight up didn't visit any of the commercial space. I don't think mixed-use really works on a local scale without the crossover.

If the commercial space had even one store that people wanted, like a Trader Joes, it could have worked.

The Embarcadero Centre is mixed-use and pretty popular./

The apartment I rented in LA shared space with a Trader Joe, was across the street from Target and UCLA was a couple blocks away. Super expensive, however.

part of that, for LA at least, is that the mixed-use here still requires parking, which is expensive. so it's designed with low commercial square footage to make room for ground-level and above ground parking, which is cheaper than subterranean parking. the commercial space is minimized to a token amount likely to meet the necessary zoning/permitting restrictions to get the benefit of higher floor area ratios (FAR) for the least cost. then the businesses that can fit in the space, given the high rents, aren't nearly as attractive to residents, who are also paying high rents.

I see this in Reston VA.

Real estate prices tend to be high. The mixed use development might have a few fancy restaurants, high-end boutiques, etc - but nothing to fill the daily needs of the residents. The local residents often have to drive to get to a normal grocer or mom & pop retail.

The College Park one might be an interesting option for them, as it's already in a pseudo-"mixed use" area. The location immediately borders an apartment complex and small shopping center. It's actually quite similar already to your fear, unfortunately.

One here in Bmore is in White Marsh/Nottingham MD. It's suburbia (there's an old yet active mall a few feet away & across the street a semi-old active yet more modern shopping plaza) and where tons pick up the MegaBus to travel to NYC.

I can't see them doing this in College Park with the goal of reducing driving. This Ikea is in the northern-most part. Unfortunately, retail is spread out thin along Route 1 and is absolutely awful for walking to if you are not near the university. And riding a bike on Route 1 is a significant risk on your life.

Well, I guess this goes back to the question of whether architecture can solve social problems.

Sometimes it works. But I am more a fan of humaneness solving social problems than technology. [1]

My other issue with the technology-solves-all mentality is that it leads to greater good type arguments. Countries with a passionate social scene seem to be that way because of what I guess we call culture. Great architecture and art, now that is something else...

[1] To be clear, COVID-19 is not a social problem. It does have social side-effects.

I guess this goes back to the question of whether architecture can solve social problems.

I'd say it can, but not in a vacuum.

Great architecture ..., now that is something else...

Agreed. Top-notch architecture is equal parts art and engineering. Not only is it functional (in the most basic sense of "it's a building with a roof and a door"), but it's aesthetically pleasingly, makes a statement about the state of the world, and makes occupants feel good.

I'm probably just missing it, but where do you see that in the article? From my reading of it these new "malls" in the US are going to be in dense areas, separate from regular Ikea stores.

It does not say they will be extensions of existing IKEA stores.

I can imagine that there are multi-use spaces all fitted out with IKEA furniture that you can buy on the spot (but not haul out directly with you... rather, arrange same-day delivery from the suburban IKEA store nearest to that city).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com