>Malls aren't dying.
Cities are. Certain "rustbelt" cities and towns to be more specific. The malls that die are invariably in areas of decline.
Caruso may be shifting the game with his paradigm of outdoor faux townscapes [sic] but he is making malls that do not look like malls with the same single ownership structure--and this is the real problem: single entities developing millions of square feet, risking lots of capital and building as cheaply as possible because of the risk. He's just using modern design methods to emmulate old downtowns, as anachronistic as that may seem. But the style is just that. Style.
He does not build in places like Matteson, IL, for example because Lincoln Mall in Matteson is dying due to demographic trends (mostly white flight) and the thriving of another ...mall of the same - style - and vintage but with a shinny Apple store. Places like Matteson are unlucky because other malls in and around the Chicagoland are doing quite fine despite their tired, mid-century-gray motifs.
In places like Chicago where the weather is miserable most of the time winter and summer (IMHO), indoor malls still make a lot of sense. The "Gold Coast" downtown does well because it's a tourist attraction in one a wealthy zip code. But when it's 34-below an indoor mall is a nice respite.
Perhaps I am just venting because my thesis was on these greyfield malls and how to save them without starting from scratch or following the next trend in retail development because many places do not have the luxury to start fresh. Mall typologies are like hairstyles: you may not like afros, comb-overs or mullets, but each one had its day and will have its wearer and they are all here to stay. It's just a matter of how you maintain them.